Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 65957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
merger is a much easier sell than dilution. I think the market would support that if absolutely no extra equity was created and reassurance was given that dilution would never happen.

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?

Offline kisa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 06:21:26 pm by kisa0145 »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem

Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."

2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem

Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.

3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem

Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.

Questions

What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?

could be done as you wrote it.

- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?

what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?

"Collapse" is a poor choice of words.  This would be a merger.  Mergers are done when companies are considered stronger together than apart.  One or two other chains would be merged to share features, the most important of which are common bitAssets and complementary network effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. 
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 oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Funny how people who wants one bitUSD for all chains are opposed to one DAC proposition...
.  So you want Bytemaster to work on one DAC you want one universal bitUSD or whatever bitAsset, But you don't like this proposition....

I'll summarize my understanding of the two options our community have. I may be wrong in my understanding, especially because we don't have much information on the one DAC technical proposition.

1.We have  one DAC and all business model will be developed  on this DAC(Vote and Play and maybe DNS)  let's call this DAC :  Bitshares
This same idea it is developed at a furious pace with lots of funding by a competitor  I'm sure you all heard about them: Ethereum. So if you know how Ethereum works, well it the same idea with Bitshares.

So what would  Bitshares advantages/disadvantages be I will only cover the most debated parts(but not the ags/pts part)  :

- you'll have just one token bts instead of many tokens (vote,dns,play etc). (I may be wrong about that tough)
- you'll have one unique  bitAsset, i.e.  bitUSD will be used by all others businesses, So you go to play a game, you download the PLAY game wallet, bitUSD is integrated already you just use it.
The absolutely amazing part about that is all your bitAssets are issued in only one place. This I can't stress how important is this part. AND this could be technically accomplished only under one Bitshare Dac proposition.
-you'll have one team working for Bitshare and so you'll have Bytemaster full attention dedicated in one place.
- Bitshares will be turing complete.

If(big if here)  this could be done it would be an amazing achievement, and this should be the way to go. By the time Etherum will be finishing development, you'll already have a Turing complete platform with working applications on it. 

The unknowns/disadvantages : 
- Bytemaster always said that one chain to rule them all, it is not scalable. And that why Bitshare chose to take multiple chain DAC option.
Now I'm thinking this is a major change not only technical but also at philosophical approach level. So  I'm thinking  maybe somehow  he found a way to technically solve the scalability issue, has he ?
- How long it will take to be achieved ?
-How it will affect BitshareX, DNS, PLAY ? 

2. The other option we have is to not change nothing of course.

-every new chain will have its own unique token(i.e notes)
-no worry about scalability
- bitAssets will be issued in ALL  DAC's that needs a stable bitAsset, not only in Bitshare X. Please understand, with this approach, this is the only way to do it. Could not be technically done any different. I.e you'll have bitUSDmusic, bitUSDdns bitUSDvote etc. The topic was discussed at length in the Vote tread.

So if I judge by the tread about the Voting DAC, most of you, don't like this approach at all. The problem is, for some reason, we  understood and imagine that the bitUSD will only be issued in Bitsharex and every DAC will used it from there. This could not be done as it is now.
In  my opinion BitshareX is still absolutely the best thing since Bitcoin but of course one chain Bitshares could be even better.

There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.

I think the one chain approach has it own problem but the advantages are far more beneficial than the disadvantages.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
I fully support BM's proposal, and the sooner implemented the better.

Unifying under BTS is an incredible idea and an excellent value proposition for existing stakeholders.

Disclosure: I hold PTS, AGS and BTSX.

BTS?  +5%

Offline oakmaster

As long as my pts can be converted to bitshares has my vote I started investing in pts for the purpose of DACs I also have AGS and BTSX so as far as I'm concerned making them one is the best idea that way no matter when u starting investing nobody losing anything

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
panic?

no, here is no panic.

tradingvolume outside of BTSX is still low. Price droped maybe 8-10% but in crypto this is nothing.

many people are hedging inside of BTSX. in my opinion this is really a great reaction of the community.

i hope the uncertainty will be resolved as fast as possible.

Offline fuzzy

I've buying bitusd (wish I started earlier) so I can buy back more btsx cheaper. More like dump and pump :)

Yep...I hve about 900bitUSD, but i did it to help increase the value of the peg.  Looks like good karma :)
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Pheonike

I've buying bitusd (wish I started earlier) so I can buy back more btsx cheaper. More like dump and pump :)

Offline fuzzy

A couple of things:

I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.

What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?

Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.

I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer. 

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

The opportunity appears now.

some more clarification please?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
A couple of things:

I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.

What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?

Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.

I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer. 

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

The opportunity appears now.
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 matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile


Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?

I hold only BTSX and I'm in favour of this because I want a strong bitUSD and an adaptable DAC that isn't competing with a bunch of other bitUSDs.  Bitshares DACS all use the same business model of creating a stable bitasset backed by their shares.  They could be in completely different industries (Voting, banking) but still be in pointless competition due to sharing the same business model, that of popularizing their bitasset(s).  Why not bring the DACS together so they can compete against their real competitors and merge with their natural allies. 

I had a look at the chinese forum (with google translate) and they seem to be confused about what's going on.  Maybe they could use a translation?

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?

I am heavily vested in BitShares beginning in August of this year, and I think BM has cojones AND the holistic vision to steer us down the right path with this latest proposal. Everyone, regardless of when they began investing in BitShares, would benefit greatly from this proposal.

Offline amatoB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.

No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.

I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.

Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal.  There's a lot of uncertainty.  It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger.  If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible. 

This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.

BM has big balls without a doubt. THAT is the kind of leadership any enterprise needs.


Let's be clear. This isn't an issue about guts or cojones. It's an issue about judgment. Does leadership have the holistic vision and depth of judgment to do what's best for Bitshares and the industry overall? Or, are they unduly influenced by a vocal minority here who are heavily vested in bitshares from pre-Feb 28th or who may have other, hidden agendas?

Offline D4vegee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
The damage re: inflation has already been done. There is no turning back, we simply have to implement inflation because that is the only way to have the bitshares superDAC be competitive in the long run. Remember that shares will only ever be issued to fund endevours that are long term profitable and result in a net gain for the shareholders. This will only be positive unless you dont trust the developers and delegates. The only negative coming from implementing inflation is the selloff we are seeing right now, which means the damage has already been done.

No, it's plain to see that the selloff is not just due to the possibility of inflation. This selloff is about bigger issues with the current proposal and perhaps, to some degree, a loss in faith in leadership due to the fact that they are even entertaining such a proposal.

I heard talk of moving some of the dev funding held in BTC into BTSX, in which case the selloff allows more BTSX to be purchased, providing more funding if they do some of that while the price is down.

Also the price has been going down for weeks, it's not all because of this proposal.  There's a lot of uncertainty.  It's people freaking out from not understanding that the proposal makes bitshares much stronger.  If this proposal gets more well fleshed out and goes ahead BTSX (then called BTS) will become invincible. 

This proposal gives me more confidence in the leadership as it demonstrates bytemaster has the guts to take drastic measures to navigate us through the stormy seas of crypto-startup land.

BM has big balls without a doubt. THAT is the kind of leadership any enterprise needs.