VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0

[bytemaster]

I haven't read the whole thread... but want to let everyone know that we are working to achieve consensus and do so transparently.

BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin.  It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained.....  the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....

The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other...  there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).   

The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.

The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...

I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July.   

BTSX doesn't want competition, but we must all remember that I must build a solid product using funds from after Feb 28 too.




 

[roadscape]

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?

[Stan]

I3: I will say please try to limit how many times you rebrand / make huge fundamental changes. This has and still is a big problem with bitshares. Maybe take a step back and really try to map out how the whole ecosystem should be before moving forward much more. This figure it out as you go approach is really not good for adoption or retention of participants. I understand sometimes you have to make changes, but there have been too many in my opinion.

And then there those of us who like having these discussions discussed so that we can have input that we know is at least read and considered on its merits.

If they do like you say then there is no input, less vetting of ideas etc.

All they have done is grown the VOTE DAC which was never really a core DAC IMO.  BitsharesX has stayed pretty damn close to the initial target.   I can't think of any rebranding either ?

I would second teenagecheese on this.  I think what is meant is that it is starting to looking like I3 doesn't really have a thought through business plan/execution plan for BTSX.  If funding was a problem, the red flag should have been raised a while ago. 

 I have supported these 90 degree changes in the past, but seriously it is starting to looking like I3 is taking us through a  random walk in the woods.  This proposal with the VOTE Dac seems less like us capitalizing on an opportunity and more like us trying to compensate for financing problems with BTSX.   Additionally these provocative comments by BM regarding  the future prospects of BTSX will surely spook the market.  I don't think this was the best way to position this discussion.    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.

A path can seldom appear straight when one desires to achieve a consensus. 

[James212]

I'm assuming the self-funding for the project will come through dilution of Vote shares? (something that could have been done with BTSX as well if we weren't so foolish to promise a 2 billion BTSX hard cap)

^ This pretty much sums it up.

We've come a long way during the past year in introducing the company metaphor and weening ourselves away from Bitcoin folklore associated with the currency metaphor.  There are many things our community now accepts as obvious that would have been dead on arrival last November.  Chief among them is the idea that you can (and should) pre-allocate some or all of a DAC's shares.  A year ago there would have been outraged cries of "unfair pre-mining!".  This might be valid if you are distributing a new currency.  It is not valid if you are launching a new company.  Companies always have an initial allocation of shares and then release more shares as they need to attract talent and capital.  Metaphors matter.

Companies do not generally promise to lock themselves into one set of rules like a good currency might.  Most companies only promise one thing to their shareholders - to be successful.  To provide a return on investment.  To grow the value of their shares and perhaps share some profits along the way.

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.

 

[Stan]

I'm assuming the self-funding for the project will come through dilution of Vote shares? (something that could have been done with BTSX as well if we weren't so foolish to promise a 2 billion BTSX hard cap)

^ This pretty much sums it up.

We've come a long way during the past year in introducing the company metaphor and weening ourselves away from Bitcoin folklore associated with the currency metaphor.  There are many things our community now accepts as obvious that would have been dead on arrival last November.  Chief among them is the idea that you can (and should) pre-allocate some or all of a DAC's shares.  A year ago there would have been outraged cries of "unfair pre-mining!".  This might be valid if you are distributing a new currency.  It is not valid if you are launching a new company.  Companies always have an initial allocation of shares and then release more shares as they need to attract talent and capital.  Metaphors matter.

Companies do not generally promise to lock themselves into one set of rules like a good currency might.  Most companies only promise one thing to their shareholders - to be successful.  To provide a return on investment.  To grow the value of their shares and perhaps share some profits along the way.

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.

[James212]

I3: I will say please try to limit how many times you rebrand / make huge fundamental changes. This has and still is a big problem with bitshares. Maybe take a step back and really try to map out how the whole ecosystem should be before moving forward much more. This figure it out as you go approach is really not good for adoption or retention of participants. I understand sometimes you have to make changes, but there have been too many in my opinion.

And then there those of us who like having these discussions discussed so that we can have input that we know is at least read and considered on its merits.

If they do like you say then there is no input, less vetting of ideas etc.

All they have done is grown the VOTE DAC which was never really a core DAC IMO.  BitsharesX has stayed pretty damn close to the initial target.   I can't think of any rebranding either ?

I would second teenagecheese on this.  I think what is meant is that it is starting to looking like I3 doesn't really have a thought through business plan/execution plan for BTSX.  If funding was a problem, the red flag should have been raised a while ago. 

 I have supported these 90 degree changes in the past, but seriously it is starting to looking like I3 is taking us through a  random walk in the woods.  This proposal with the VOTE Dac seems less like us capitalizing on an opportunity and more like us trying to compensate for financing problems with BTSX.   Additionally these provocative comments by BM regarding  the future prospects of BTSX will surely spook the market.  I don't think this was the best way to position this discussion.    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.

[Mysto]

Bytemaster and co. are extremely confident about the network effect they can gain using dilution as well as the fact they need it for infrastructure and development.

Btsx is not being abandoned.  This project is designed to fund common infrastructure via dilution.   My job is to lead not code.   And btsx is dac suns job to maintain upgrade and bug fix.

Btsx is hamstrung with a fixed dev budget that will take time to grow. 

1) BTSX hard cap of 2 billion is going to limit its growth potential.

7) The biggest reason of all why we are doing this has to do with the fact that we can gather "network effect" faster with the VOTE DAC...

How we do all of that is still slightly under wraps... but trust me it may beat BTSX to the moon.

Now I am someone more in favour of no dilution but there is no advantage to not choosing the general option Bytemaster is for after feedback. So now I'm for dilution.

Why? Put simply Bytemaster doesn't work for us. As he says above he's here to lead not code.

While I'm sure BM will fulfil his obligations to a DAC, he doesn't work for the DAC. So you can either be part of a DAC where the underlying toolkit development etc.  is largely lead by Bytemaster but there is no option where he is the one being lead on big decisions imo.

If BM is clear after feedback that dilution is required for the BitAsset network effect. Then...

The only possible Darwinian conclusion:

What does Bytemaster think is the best dilution model for BTSX? and pretty much do that.

Also to follow that formula more in general. To not support the direction of the key talent after feedback especially on big decisions leads to more of these mixed options and uncertainty.

 

This is the way I see it. BM had this great idea to dilute BTSX in order to market it and help it grow faster. Some people were strongly against that.
So now BM is focusing on something that can be diluted and help itself grow (Voting DAC)

I'm assuming the self-funding for the project will come through dilution of Vote shares? (something that could have been done with BTSX as well if we weren't so foolish to promise a 2 billion BTSX hard cap)

^ This pretty much sums it up.

[starspirit]

Maybe the system that is most adaptive is the one that eventually dominates everything. Maybe what we need is improved process to manage maximal adaptation.

[blahblah7up]

At least "the writing is on the wall".

If you go to the main page and look up on top of your browser it clearly states:

BitShares Forum - Reimagine Everything

 

[teenagecheese]

Discussion here is great. I'm talking about things like: protoshares-->bitshares pts --> bitshares genesis? and keyhotee -->keyID + DNS? ---> now bitVOTE is involed somehow?, and bitVOTE --> bitSOMETHING?

Definitely discuss it first, just don't go ahead and launch it and then discuss it and then change it. It's confusing. It will hurt the chances of success. Sometimes that is necessary because you learn from experience, but I think it could and should be done less. It takes a lot of effort to try to imagine how things will develop and to plan them out accordingly, but that is what needs to happen.

...and when I said bitshares I wasn't talking about bitshares x, I was talking about bitshares the brand, it is confusing, but I think it's gaining clarity and I just wanted to say my piece in hopes it will reinforce that clarity. Bitshares x has been done very well. Very clean, no rebrading (except for the bitshares xt which I'm o.k. with becasue it was early). I'm very impressed with bitshares x, they have a done a great job with that.

[gamey]

I3: I will say please try to limit how many times you rebrand / make huge fundamental changes. This has and still is a big problem with bitshares. Maybe take a step back and really try to map out how the whole ecosystem should be before moving forward much more. This figure it out as you go approach is really not good for adoption or retention of participants. I understand sometimes you have to make changes, but there have been too many in my opinion.

And then there those of us who like having these discussions discussed so that we can have input that we know is at least read and considered on its merits.

If they do like you say then there is no input, less vetting of ideas etc.

All they have done is grown the VOTE DAC which was never really a core DAC IMO.  BitsharesX has stayed pretty damn close to the initial target.   I can't think of any rebranding either ?

[zerosum]

The OP was not approved by toast's patent-pending PR Sanity Check

Good to know...

even on page 13 of the thread 

[teenagecheese]

It seems to me that having every DAC have its own version of bitUSD backed by its own token (btsx, bitVOTE, etc.) will cause each chain to have a weaker (larger spread & lower liquidity) peg. It also makes the ecosystem, which is already complex, even more confusing to understand and use. Wouldn't it be better to only have the one bitUSD backed by btsx that all the DACs use? Is that possible technically?

Please read this and this. I hope that will explain why things are done this way.

Thanks arhag, those links really helped me to understand.

It seems my concerns were valid, but the creation of mulitple bitUSD may be the best choice for technical reasons. I think this will hurt bithshares x and the other DACs because the peg and liquidity will not be as strong, but if it is necessary, sobeit.

I3: I will say please try to limit how many times you rebrand / make huge fundamental changes. This has and still is a big problem with bitshares. Maybe take a step back and really try to map out how the whole ecosystem should be before moving forward much more. This figure it out as you go approach is really not good for adoption or retention of participants. I understand sometimes you have to make changes, but there have been too many in my opinion.

[toast]

The OP was not approved by toast's patent-pending PR Sanity Check

[onceuponatime]

Just read this thread and I realized I was being a jackass buying up BTSX Almost the entire of my BTC collection I have used up in the past few days.

Thanks a lot BM.

I have read the thread and I continue to buy up btsx.

What's your take on the valuation?