Should we continue to funding mining of PTS?

[biophil]

I'm not sure my opinion is strong enough on the liquid/illiquid question to make an argument either way, but please consider this:

Novemeber 5 is only 2.5 weeks away! CoinHoarder mentioned this too, that seems WAY TOO SOON. I know you want to blow up Parliament (tee hee, civil disobedience joke!), but don't rush the snapshot just for the sake of symbolism! You're making a major change to the role and function of PTS, and this needs to be very well publicized. 2.5 weeks is a dangerously short time for this!

Edit: Well, at least this discussion has the markets in a flurry: PTS is playing with 0.008 BTC on Bter.

[bytemaster]

User issued asset on BTSX is better than a new chain because then you can buy into snapshots without having to trust an exchange to honor it. 

[davidpbrown]

Everyone gets to choose whether they want to be in that snapshot forever or have the current cash value of PTS up front.

*Everyone who is aware of it before it happens.

I don't think such a change adds anything. It's all very neat and tidy but I suspect there's a reason that some opted for AGS and some for PTS.

[emski]

Initial assumption for PTS was to be liquid. This was reiterated many times. It should remain liquid and DACs shouldn't rely on single snapshot. I think moving it to DPOS (blessed by III) is the best option.

[Stan]

That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.

Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about. The AGS like option that Notes is doing is alright but I prefer the PTS aspect of it far more.. being one of the incrowd rather than one of the rabble.. also you know what you are getting with the PTS like approach.. gambling each day isn't so much fun.

I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.

This is perhaps the most compelling argument.  I love watching PTS run up the coinmarketcap flagpole to announce the birth of an new DAC.

[bytemaster]

have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.

That is too cryptic.

This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.

That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.

Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about.

I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.

Buying into "snapshots" is very tricky because the value of PTS includes so many factors that you don't know what price you are getting.   If you are really interested in a particular DAC it is almost always better not to buy PTS but to buy that one DAC because you will get a larger stake per value.   See the Peertracks Pre Sale... cheaper to buy in via their AGS system than via PTS.

Liquidity does have value... adding liquidity to AGS + PTS on a new chain or as user issued assets in BTSX would have value.   If adding liquidity has value, then removing liquidity has a cost.... and this is perhaps the biggest reason why we would want to bless a user issued asset that honored the final PTS snapshot. 

[Stan]

Keeping PTS liquid should help diversify the user base.  I would imagine after people finding out about the BTSX snapshot, new users may have purchased PTS for future DAC's.

That decision hasn't changed since the status of PTS ownership on Nov 5 would be used by them to get all those future DACs.
The only thing that would change is the ability to resell them after that date.

Everyone gets to choose whether they want to be in that snapshot forever or have the current cash value of PTS up front.

[davidpbrown]

have DACS launch their own proto-dac like Toast did or even BTSX did.

That is too cryptic.

This will also create one genesis block initial balance template for all DACs and remove the need to support the genesis block generators for arbitrary dates.

That takes away half the fun! I thought the idea of moving PTS to DPOS, was to simply have a token that was within the same system as other tokens.

Freezing PTS or whatever those PTS become, would be a substaintial change and step away from what has been the case previously; and would be rather presumptious. I don't mind myself but then like the idea of having an option to buyin more to snapshots that I'm more passionate about. The AGS like option that Notes is doing is alright but I prefer the PTS aspect of it far more.. being one of the incrowd rather than one of the rabble.. also you know what you are getting with the PTS like approach.. gambling each day isn't so much fun.

I think then it would be better to still have a liquid token, to help build excitement at each snapshot and engage holders in each new DAC.. again as someother post pointed out odd characteristics that lend themselves to marketing can be very useful.

[bytemaster]

So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:

The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Sep 5

But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.

Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.

But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.

You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got.   Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else.   So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won.  This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.

Even that dillution of about 30% cannot compare to the multiplier of 6.

It wouldn't apply if you compare apples to apples  AGS @ 2M vs PTS @ 1.7M   That 6x apply for BTSX and any clones of BTSX only.   Holding PTS past Feb 28th... meant you wanted a larger stake in everything that never qualified for a 3x multiplier.     Had you chosen to give up your liquidity on Feb 27th you would end up with a MUCH smaller stake than giving up liquidity now. 

So I suppose that PTS value would fall to the value proportional to the value of PTS liquidity vs non liqudity after the snapshot.   If the fall in value is large then a new "liquid" version would likely pop up... if it were small then there is not much demand for a liquid version of PTS. 

Thus the long term holders can make money prior to the last snapshot by buying from the liquidity seekers at a discount. 

[Brekyrself]

Keeping PTS liquid should help diversify the user base.  I would imagine after people finding out about the BTSX snapshot, new users may have purchased PTS for future DAC's.

[Empirical1.1]

You can end PTS on Nov 5 but I would consider combining PTS & AGS into a single liquid DPOS  thing.

As support, interest and understanding of DACs grow more and more people will want to be shareholders in an asset that DAC developers can honour not only to use the BitShares toolkit and perhaps get BitShares dev input but to get a wide base of initial shareholders, thereby avoiding the NXT effect (poor distribution) which can occur with an unpopular pre-sale.

I imagine the VOTE DAC will become popular for this use case as you can enumerate exactly how many people are initial shareholders and award them based on specific criteria too.

But I still think (PTS+AGS) should be a separate liquid asset to constantly broaden its shareholder base and make it more appealing to new DAC developers otherwise the 1000+ (PTS+AGS) shareholders will become a smaller less relevant target over time.

Though  I'm personally interested in having a good stake (like we do) in a key/core base DAC in each area. (Finance, Entertainment, Gaming, Voting etc..) rather than trying to focus on 101 offerings anyway.

[emski]

So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:

The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Sep 5

But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.

Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.

But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.

You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got.   Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else.   So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won.  This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.

Even that dillution of about 30% cannot compare to the multiplier of 6.

[bytemaster]

So this would leave both AGS and PTS working the exact same way:

The last AGS snapshot on July 18
The last PTS snapshot on Nov 5

But they both still function as unique demographic mailing lists for all new DAC categories.

Developers would choose whether their new DAC honors an existing category formerly derived 50/50 from PTS and AGS (like BTSX) or is a new category derived directly from PTS and AGS.

But .... If wasn't under the impression that PTS can be liquid,I would've donated all my PTS to AGS which can gain 6.6X at Feb. for BTSX.
All of these people took a big hit base on this decision,just hoping PTS can be valuable one day.
Now...... If without more allocation preference on PTS than AGS,I don't think many of uf would've understand.

You would have to compare AGS on July 2M vs PTS now 1.7M... thus right now PTS holders would end up with a larger preference than AGS holders ever got.   Had you donated to gain 6.6x in Feb for BTSX then you would have been diluted more than holding PTS for everything else.   So you traded more BTSX for more of everything else and won.  This is a net gain over any day of AGS donation for those who wanted liquidity.

[Stan]

I do think however, that snapshots for sharedrops shouldn't be limited to only PTS/AGS - the social consensus is that they each get 10% minimum, why not then snapshot other blockchains like bitcoin for 10%? It would bring a massive influx of new users!

This is the whole idea behind BitShares Sharedrop Theory - http://bitshares.org/bitshares-airdrop-theory/

[emski]

I also think PTS should migrate to DPOS and remain liquid.

I guess that could still be done (using the snapshot) at any point in the future.

Solely depends on consensus. I doubt anyone would honor DPOS chain over the PTS snapshot if it is not recommended by III.