Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[linyibo010]

We donated AGS
Ever,we feel we are the most honorable men.
But now,we are just the most funny clowns.
shit!!

[Stan]

We used tyranny of the  faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.

  I'm sure you don't intend to suggest we are children..

but still it would have been better as tyranny of senior devs as a group rather than ever one dev.. even if that was BM himself.

Again - always with the choice of metaphor.

I'm using the parental experience many of us have had when it comes time to share a non-homogeneous asset among people you care about and when you wish to honor their trust in you.

And BM discussed this with all the developers.  Then synthesized a mix using his best judgement.   The buck stops there.

[davidpbrown]

We used tyranny of the  faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.

  I'm sure you don't intend to suggest we are children..

but still it would have been better as tyranny of senior devs as a group rather than ever one dev.. even if that was BM himself.

[Stan]

Stan - maximizing shareholder value is fine as long as each shareholder has the same class of shares and therefore the same representation. When you start wielding your influence to devalue one company at the expense of another you are no longer maximizing shareholder value. Making AGS liquid at the expense of everyone else and defying the social contract to "gift" one group at the expense of another is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", NOT mutually beneficial market forces.

Under mutually beneficial market forces we would have just picked the next DAC up, designed it to be a SuperDAC, and put all the others out of business.  We didn't use tyranny of the market.  We didn't use tyranny of the majority.  We used tyranny of the  faithful and hopefully even-handed parent.

[Stan]

oh, four in one, sounds good

i can see some days later, you, bm would announce that, we need pts2, ags2, we need more money to lift ourself.

we can see that day, it's funny.

Unlikely.  But this is a business and businesses make the best decisions they can with the knowledge they have available to them at each moment.  Businesses have shareholders who can fire management if they make too many bad decisions.  We are setting this all up so we are all subject to that fact. 

[yoo]

oh, four in one, sounds good

i can see some days later, you, bm would announce that, we need pts2, ags2, we need more money to lift ourself.

we can see that day, it's funny.

[bytemaster]

I thought that would necessarily be the case anyway.
I wonder it would not be practical for DNS = NOTE = VOTE = BTSX. Those others are assets within BTS.

The risk is simply having those on one chain.. one bug could rue them all.
Then the other issue is putting PTS/AGS into BTS or put that separate.

There is risk that one bug could rue them all, but don't forget if all developers are together than it is easier to fix the bug rather than if they are separate.

That is why we are going to have DevShares... to take that risk and prove ideas prior to being integrated into BTS. 

[alphaBar]

Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.

Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219

Its funny the responses then

changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!

The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.

I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.

Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.

Also stated was that we were building an unmanned company guided by the metaphor of a business, not a currency.

Businesses do value infusions to grow and compete.  Our biggest commitment is to grow and compete. All decisions must be viewed in the light of what maximizes shareholder value.  Thus the proposal is completely consistent with that. 

Semper Fi.   

Stan - maximizing shareholder value is fine as long as each shareholder has the same class of shares and therefore the same representation. When you start wielding your influence to devalue one company at the expense of another you are no longer maximizing shareholder value. Making AGS liquid at the expense of everyone else and defying the social contract to "gift" one group at the expense of another is a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", NOT mutually beneficial market forces.

[sumantso]

Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.

No it hasn't. I haven't claimed my stakes from genesis, just bought a lot more with my BTCs (at above the current rate I might add). So in effect I am not getting the distribution as promised.

I understand why it is happening and have to accept it (not least as I have no other option). It just every argument starts with 'BM can't serve 2 masters' when that particular issue could've been avoided.

[Stan]

Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.

Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219

Its funny the responses then

changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!

The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.

I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.

Remember that there is more to that proposition than just the initial distribution, which happened faithfully as stated above.

Also stated was that we were building an unmanned company guided by the metaphor of a business, not a currency.

Businesses do value infusions to grow and compete.  Our biggest commitment is to grow and compete. All decisions must be viewed in the light of what maximizes shareholder value.  Thus the proposal is completely consistent with that. 

Semper Fi.   

[davidpbrown]

Its funny the responses then
...
I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.

In fairness I think what is intended is a change of form not function.

The social contract stands, though is perhaps less obvious if drowned within BTS. I think losing the explicit interest in new DACs that PTS/AGS voiced, would be unfortunate.

[sumantso]

Still can't decide what will all these lead to. I am spread out across BTSX/AGS/PTS so wouldn't be too bad for me.

Anyway, the community should have listened to me when I was raising concern along with a suggestion asking it to be debated https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53219#msg53219

Its funny the responses then

changing the social contract is suicide and the devs know that very well and stated several times in this board that it will not happen!

The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.

I know it doesn't help to harp on the past but all I can think is that all this mess could've been easily avoided.

[davidpbrown]

still not sure on the above, could someone answer for me please. Just YES/NO is cool

Yes to those points.
+
Would expect PTS would freeze up and become worthless, esp without miners for it.
Third party DACs honoring social contract has always been optional but in their interests to do so.

[MrJeans]

I havnt got round to reading through all 25 pages.

So, after snap shot PTS price can expect to drop to zero?

AGS no longer used for snap shots?

New snap shots taken from BitsharesX?

Third party DACs using bitshares tool kit must take a snap shot from BitsharesX?

DNS, music, Gaming etc running on BitsharesX blockchain?

If someone wants to invest in the future of the DACs industry they would need to buy bitsharesX shares?

Continued development on the bitshares toolkit?

still not sure on the above, could someone answer for me please. Just YES/NO is cool

[davidpbrown]

Yes and I think it's best we defer to the devs expert view on this. If it is not simply the case that BTS sits upstream and fixes core bugs and other DACs are then downstream with their own chains and characteristics relative to BTS, then perhaps it needs to be all in one.

I'm not clear yet what intent there is for spinning off sucessful DACs later. Perhaps now if those are their own asset within BTS, then that isn't necessary and those will always be as one with BTS.

As suggested a number of times it's early days and I do not think it matters at this stage; so long as what is done is useful to the devs, that is most important.