VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0

[vikram]

Locking to avoid further confusion. Refer instead to subsequent threads:

• Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10148.msg132495#msg132495
• Consensus reached on Mumble session regarding BM's "Fix-all" proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10177.msg133139#msg133139
• Bytemaster and Stan discuss what exactly their thoughts and intentions are.: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10181.msg133232#msg133232
• Summary of recent events / merger proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10214.msg133796#msg133796

[mbaeichapareiko]

That was great news released on mumble, about the Vote DAC.   And the good news is if bts will benefit from the capital infusion from pts and ags, then it will be a win win for us.  I think its time to buy some more btsx now.  the price is looking good.

[Brent.Allsop]

Can we use VOTE DAC to vote what to do with PTS?

If you want something like this to get done, you only need to build enough consensus.  Once you have enough consensus, no matter how hard, it will just happen.  It is all in the consensus building, and measuring, quantitatively how many people are on board, who is not yet on board and why, and what it would take to get them on board.  Everything else is easy.

http://Canonizer.com can do this.  So, if you want something done, simply create a survey topic (like a modern dynamic petition in many ways) and once you have enough consensus, it will just happen.

What, exactly, is it that you want to happen with PTS?  And lets get started getting it done.

Brent Allsop

[xh3]

Subtract until it breaks. If we're going to sell bitshares to the world, we need to mystify people, not confuse them.

[jsidhu]

The of bitshares is not to challenge bitcoin but to work with bitcoin.. bitshares is the shares allocation and dac part of the crypto sphere as bitcoin is currency.

[Method-X]

I think most people are coming around to the notion that shares can and should be diluted to facilitate growth. I don't anticipate you'll receive much resistance from the community on that issue. Diluting BTSX for the right reasons seems like the path of least resistance compared to the alternatives.

Indeed, I am sure most of us would rather dilute than have you kill BTSX and just make VOTE the new BTSX+

I started a new thread with a proposed unification of everything under BTSX and dropping the X and just calling it BitShares...

It sounds fantastic! Once you've established BitShares as THE crypto to challenge Bitcoin, you will literally have developers throwing themselves at you. At that point you could create a BitShares Labs and work with some of the most brilliant minds in the world on your other ideas.

[bytemaster]

I think most people are coming around to the notion that shares can and should be diluted to facilitate growth. I don't anticipate you'll receive much resistance from the community on that issue. Diluting BTSX for the right reasons seems like the path of least resistance compared to the alternatives.

Indeed, I am sure most of us would rather dilute than have you kill BTSX and just make VOTE the new BTSX+

I started a new thread with a proposed unification of everything under BTSX and dropping the X and just calling it BitShares...

[Ander]

I think most people are coming around to the notion that shares can and should be diluted to facilitate growth. I don't anticipate you'll receive much resistance from the community on that issue. Diluting BTSX for the right reasons seems like the path of least resistance compared to the alternatives.

Indeed, I am sure most of us would rather dilute than have you kill BTSX and just make VOTE the new BTSX+

[arhag]

Even if there was a promise of no inflation, it would be irrelevant because the authority in a DAC lies with the delegates, and nowhere else. If elected delegates decide to hard fork to inflate, and no majority or significant minority of stakeholders oppose them, then it will happen regardless of any promises made earlier. The purpose of a DAC is to grow in network and in value, and as it is fast becoming apparent that no inflation without a huge bootstrapped network is not competitive, then I don't think it will be difficult to gain a majority for inflation any longer.

I would say the authority of the DAC actually lies with the shareholders not the delegates, since the shareholders can always fork it and change delegates if the delegates decide to take over the DAC and refuse to follow the wishes of the shareholders.

Also, you said "and no majority or significant minority of stakeholders oppose them." That is the problem. I think there is a majority of BTSX holders who oppose dilution, or maybe it's just a significant minority now because all of this discussion initiated by bytemaster has scared BTSX holders straight . Then again, I and no one else really knows that. This is why we need a quantifiable mechanism of determining the consensus of the shareholders. That's my cue to plug my proposals here, here, here, and here.

P.S. I like your merger and acquisition discussion here. I have a similar discussion but regarding a DAC splitting into two instead of two DACs merging together. For either process, delegate proposals with shareholder ratification would seriously help with the process and would allow a consensus of the shareholders to be determined to know if they actually approved of such significant actions.

[Xeldal]

Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity. 

This is making more and more sense to me. 

BTSX is the company or vehicle, and there are any number or existing 'currency' ideals traded within.  I think bitGold can satisfy my need for stability/unchanging/incorruptible/anti-dilutive 'ideal' currency needs.   The vessel that carries it needs to be more adaptive with greater tools for growth/development.   

Delegated dilution makes sense to me.

[Method-X]

Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity.

I think most people are coming around to the notion that shares can and should be diluted to facilitate growth. I don't anticipate you'll receive much resistance from the community on that issue. Diluting BTSX for the right reasons seems like the path of least resistance compared to the alternatives.

[Mysto]

Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity.

Even if there was a promise of no inflation, it would be irrelevant because the authority in a DAC lies with the delegates, and nowhere else. If elected delegates decide to hard fork to inflate, and no majority or significant minority of stakeholders oppose them, then it will happen regardless of any promises made earlier. The purpose of a DAC is to grow in network and in value, and as it is fast becoming apparent that no inflation without a huge bootstrapped network is not competitive, then I don't think it will be difficult to gain a majority for inflation any longer.

I was about to say the exact same thing 

[Rune]

Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity.

Even if there was a promise of no inflation, it would be irrelevant because the authority in a DAC lies with the delegates, and nowhere else. If elected delegates decide to hard fork to inflate, and no majority or significant minority of stakeholders oppose them, then it will happen regardless of any promises made earlier. The purpose of a DAC is to grow in network and in value, and as it is fast becoming apparent that no inflation without a huge bootstrapped network is not competitive, then I don't think it will be difficult to gain a majority for inflation any longer.

[Stan]

Above all, they promise to do everything possible to remain competitive.

The idea that the unspecified default behavior of a company is to promise a fixed set of shares for all time is a vestigial holdover from early currency metaphor thinking.  This is the red herring that needs to be faced squarely.

If a fixed supply hurts the competitive edge, has BTSX has broken that promise?

Some spin BM's comments as "BTSX cannot inflate, therefore DOA".
Is there any remote truth to this, and if so, what are our options for fixing it?

My point was that the existence of such an unpromised promise is a metaphorical trap that even we almost let ourselves be led into by the oft repeated can't infuse fresh capital assumptions of others.  If there was such a fatal promise made for the Feb 28th snapshot or upon release by DAC Sun Limited, would someone help us find it?  As far as i remember, the only thing specified was the initial genesis block distribution.

BitShares has always been about breaking the currency metaphor and embracing the company metaphor.  Companies aggressively infuse all kinds of value-increasing capital to compete.  That includes mergers and acquisitions and additional rounds of venture capital and people working for equity. 

[Mysto]

With that said, my question is what would be the best way to move forward?   Is it really the best for Bitshares to launch this VOTE proposal, or do we just need to dilute BTSX so that we have financing and can continue to focus on getting this, our main DAC, up and running properly.   I remember there were discussions regarding dilution of BTSX recently, but then the issue was theoretical, now we are facing some real-word choices.   Right now, with what I know about this new VOTE project (which is not much at all) I would rather dilute, BTSX and fold any of the VOTE special features (if in fact they are special) into BTSX if that is possible. 

I lot of confusion has been thrown into BTSX at the moment.  All my future investments in the project have been parked until such time that this is resolved.

 

What I think should be done is an official proposal be created by I3 on what a good marketing plan would look like for BTSX (in great detail) and the stakeholders can vote for delegates who support or don't support dilution based off of what the stakeholders think of it.

I agree this poll really doesn't mean anything in the end. So why not do what I mentioned above and see where stakeholders really stand?

That's how I think we should approach it at least.
"BTSX is similar to a company where the stakeholders have a say". We keep saying that... Let's actually DO IT.