Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 108853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).

I'm posing this question here as a topic for a real debate ...

I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know "the answer" if one is better than another, but it seems that going from a deflationary hard-bounded crypto equity to something resembling Apple stock (which can also be diluted without limit through a board vote, presumably on behalf of the best interest of all shareholders) should be debated on its own without other issues being commingled into the debate.

Well, its certainly still a company - just like Apple in the characteristics you mention. 
It is far more decentralized that Bitcoin. 
So you might better ask whether it is still autonomous:)

Yes, in every way that matters in the original concept.  No central authority can corrupt it (successfully).  If delegates get taken down in their jurisdictions others will pop up.  Its code is still inspectable and its data is still transparent.  And if DAC Sun goes away, someone else will pick up the baton and carry on.

And it is infinitely more answerable to its shareholders than Bitcoin and most of its alts.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 11:22:12 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Quote
Bitshares permits holders of Bitshares X to manage the quantity of Bitshares X without dependence on any off blockchain mechanisms. Additional Bitshares X can be created when shareholders vote to do so and will be given to a recipient chosen by shareholders .

This dilution business sounds like NuBits. This creates uncertainty as to who gets and why "nu"Bitshares are created.

Offline alexkravets

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.

4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.

5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there. 


I fully agree with with all the proposals above except there is a subtle but important issue with the bolded proposal 4):

The difference between a one-time buy-out of other DACs (which I do support) and switching from a deflationary hard-cap limited crypto equity and "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is a Very Big Deal.

The original (implied) promise was of an incorruptible Decentralized Autonomous Corporation with Bitcoin-like deflationary shares whose "bylaws" are defined in open source software.  Such a DAC would not be subject to human whims and compromises and would do exactly what its software said it should do.

Here's the real question, once "stake holder approved dilution without limit" is encoded into software rules, do we have a DAC anymore or is this now a DAD (Decentralized Autonomous Democracy ?).

I'm posing this question here as a topic for a real debate ...

I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know "the answer" if one is better than another, but it seems that going from a deflationary hard-bounded crypto equity to something resembling Apple stock (which can also be diluted without limit through a board vote, presumably on behalf of the best interest of all shareholders) should be debated on its own without other issues being commingled into the debate.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.
I can't listen now, but please tell me someone is recording.
several people are recording ..


Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.
I can't listen now, but please tell me someone is recording.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
BTSX is rallying now.  That panic dump was the bottom of this downtrend.  Buy all you can now, imo.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline JoeyD

Mumble hangout is happening as I type this message, bytemaster is answering questions from the community.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
@AmatoB @luckybit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law


We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?

Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.

Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.


Yes, will definitely try to read up on that. I'm not sure if it's discussed therein, but would it be possible to have a single BitUSD and cross-chain trading across separate chains? That would seem to be the most powerful model. With cross-chain exchange, even DACs with their own chains (e.g., Music, Play) could help support liquidity and the BitUSD peg.

Cross-chain trading has issues that would be incompatible with Bytemaster's Grand Vision.

We need to get the architecture right, now, before we engage the warp engines.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline amatoB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
@AmatoB @luckybit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law


We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?

Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.

Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.


Yes, will definitely try to read up on that. I'm not sure if it's discussed therein, but would it be possible to have a single BitUSD and cross-chain trading across separate chains? That would seem to be the most powerful model. With cross-chain exchange, even DACs with their own chains (e.g., Music, Play) could help support liquidity and the BitUSD peg.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
@AmatoB @luckybit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law


We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?

Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.

Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.

I don't think Metcalfe's Law applies either. It was developed for telecommunications networks. The issue here is how to you best build BitShares for the long run. Unification makes sense.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
@AmatoB @luckybit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law


We are not talking about a social communications network (to which Metcalfe's Law applies) where the number of bilateral connections determine value. We are talking about achieving a network effect. If Metcalfe's Law were applicable across the board, then why do we have separate Eastern and Western Bitshares marketing teams? Why do we have separate teams working on DNS, Music, and Play?

Achieving a network effect can be done with two separate chains, perhaps in some cases just as well or even better than with one chain.

Read this weekend's discussions about whether having one bitUSD or many BitUSDs is better.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.

But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.

More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)

Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.

Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future.  And why are third party dacs getting help?  If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all.  I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.

Edit:  Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?

Edit:  just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs!  Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?

The protoDAC model is not abandoned.  BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community.  These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.

The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time.  Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.


Clearly, re-branding BitsharesX as simply "Bitshares (BTS)" would be extremely useful and advantageous. Achieving a large network effect rapidly is also very critical and is the only way to make Bitshares really future-proof.

But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.

Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.

From that perspective, wouldn't using a separate chain (either VOTE or even a newly-launched chain) to carry out the growth strategy be the safer route? Such a strategy wouldn't preclude re-branding BTSX as BTS. It also preserves the social consensus not to dilute the original Bitshares X chain, helping to preserve credibility. And, unlike the merger approach, the separate-chain approach would still leave many fallback options if the underlying strategy growth/marketing strategy were to fail.

Everybody faced that option this weekend.
If the secret sauce works then VOTE would rocket past BTSX and inherit all the cool new stuff in the hopper.
People didn't seem to like that option.  :)

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline amatoB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile







Quote
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.

"what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger?   <- Fragmentation.

Quote
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.

The "secret sauce" plan is not really that issue here.  The reasons for each dilution will have to stand on its own merits.  We do not have the information to be able to vote on the dilution for the "secret sauce" plan at this time.  The greater issue we are confronting is how to fund our marci DAC BTS(X) for the future.  If it can't be funded, resources will go to our sister DACs which will create competition as many of the feature sets in BTS(X) can be duplicated by them and they will have more robust financing.  This will create a market mess.  We will start canalizing ourselves.   

"a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base". <- This is where you are not understanding the concept of a bitshare.  A bitshare is not a coin. **though bitUSD may be seen as a coin, it is pegged to the dollar not to the value of BTS(X)**  It is a value representation of a profit driven company and thus the task that it must perform is totally different.


My broader point is that credibility and perceptions do matter. Whether Bitshares is perceived to have adhered to the original social consensus of 50% PTS, AGS does matter. I'm not against dilution, by the way. Some form of dilution may be needed to achieve a large network effect before competitors do. But I am very skeptical about whether it's a good idea to hardwire dilution into the main chain via a merger. Using a separate, dilutable chain to fund Bitshares growth seems more sensible because it can help preserve the social consensus and the credibility of BitsharesX. Perhaps more importantly, it can help spread out and compartmentalize risks while preserving flexibility across future contingencies.

Offline fuzzy

join the Mumble Discussion on this 18-page topic.  This is obviously getting heated...so lets bring this to a more efficient communication channel.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10173.0
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D