Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 65956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pgbit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
>
My Proposal:
...
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.

"Without limit"? - seems like this would lead to devaluation down the line. Did you mean a 20% dilution only to accommodate AGS and PTS?

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
No matter what the decision is I want to know if I should claim now my BTSX from the 28th snapshot.

I would assume no but you never know...

I assume that no matter what decision is made I will be able to claim the same amount of shares that are already awarded to me from the 28th snapshot and any other number of shares awarded from DNS and VOTE AND MUSIC. So we are only talking about increasing BTSX supply and consequently my % percentage on the BTS super DAC. Correct?

And if there is a snapshot on this Super DAC from BTSX ownership the amounts claimed will take into account those unclaimed BTSX. Correct?

 

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I've made some suggestions related to this thread in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10161.0 .
I think my suggestion might solve some issues and is "fair" (whatever this means).

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only few stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.

The solution is to rather than have new features start out on the superDAC, they can be seeded on their own blockchain, bootstrap a network of active users and fix/improve/perfect their unique DAC feature. Once their business model has been proven to be profitable, the main DAC can acquire the tech, userbase and off chain infrastructure through a one time market-cap-for-market-cap snapshot.

Makes sense, then again this complicates everything opposed to making the ecosystem simpler.
IMO it might be better to leave the DACs separate, implement ACCT and integrate everything into one client. This also doesn't take the opportunity from investors to decide in which application/DAC to invest.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 01:01:56 pm by Frodo »

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares?

Exactly. This puts a TON of potential into the main BTS DAC, where everything is united and all innovation will be. Why would anyone sell this good news?? My guess it's just panic at a time when the BTSX price has fallen gradually for the past week or two. People have no idea where the bottom is, and I'm sure there are quite a few whale investors who probably don't even read the forums, instead just following the market trend...

As soon as the potential of this proposal is realized, I expect a huge, huge reversal. Be prepared.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 12:56:46 pm by nomoreheroes7 »

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
As the situation is now, my first reaction is that I shouldn't think very long term. The minute an asset doubles just dump it. And whenever a correction happens just buy back. I could have been in a better position doing just that. Instead I choose to keep buying whenever I can at no matter price

It's not that simple. Likely you would have lost even more.  ???

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only view stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.

The solution is to rather than have new features start out on the superDAC, they can be seeded on their own blockchain, bootstrap a network of active users and fix/improve/perfect their unique DAC feature. Once their business model has been proven to be profitable, the main DAC can acquire the tech, userbase and off chain infrastructure through a one time market-cap-for-market-cap snapshot.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
I agree .. also count in that some/many chineses investors might have interpreted the OP as ANNOUCEMENT which it is NOT (as you also falsely state) ..
It's a "read-for-comment", "proposal", "open-for-discussion" .. or maybe even "hey investors, we need you advice" .. kind of post!

nothing was decided ... and BM will for sure not decide such changes on it's own ..
that's what I learned reading this forum on a regular basis for almost a year now!

When it comes to a subject as volatile as share dilution, a public discussion by core developers is basically the same as an official announcement. The people who fully oppose dilution have already divested the moment they realized developers and stakeholders were even considering it as a realistic option, and you can be almost certain that of the remaining holders there is now a clear majority for dilution.

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
I'm not generaly against this but I see an issue concerning the funding. The concept of self funding DACs through dilution somehow breaks. Because not every DAC (or in this case application in one DAC) is spending their own money but rather compete on some funding payed by the whole collective. E.g. if only few stake holders have interest in a voting application it is going to be virtually impossible for them to get funded. This would basically eliminate every smaller application integrated in this DAC which probably leads to stand-alone DACs for those applications anyways.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 01:01:09 pm by Frodo »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.
I agree .. also count in that some/many chineses investors might have interpreted the OP as ANNOUCEMENT which it is NOT (as you also falsely state) ..
It's a "read-for-comment", "proposal", "open-for-discussion" .. or maybe even "hey investors, we need you advice" .. kind of post!

nothing was decided ... and BM will for sure not decide such changes on it's own ..
that's what I learned reading this forum on a regular basis for almost a year now!

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
@ Protoman: You are in the oposite boat I think. I have AGS and no PTS anymore. I had expensive after the 28th snapshot @ $15 - $20 dollars each which I finally after a long time I donated to AGS once their price dropped to $3 - $5 I think...

In no way this is a complain. Everything was well communicated back then. I just didn't understand the implications of those communications and I made some bad investment decisions where I could have been in a way much better position now if I have understood everything more clear. So the fault is on me and in no way under BM or anyone else...

As the situation is now, my first reaction is that I shouldn't think very long term. The minute an asset doubles just dump it. And whenever a correction happens just buy back. I could have been in a better position doing just that. Instead I choose to keep buying whenever I can at no matter price

My overall thinking is that I really don't care what happens short term. I am and will be a long term supporter. I just need to have a clear understanding of what needs to be done in order to maximize long term goals. I am here for the x100 of my small investment not for x2 or x5..

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Seriously now...We need to have some FINAL rules of what we will do...

I am a long term supporter in here who never got any profit yet by day trading. Instead, since I am a long time supporter I am trying to adjust in order to increase my long term position...

Bought expensive PTS. Turns out I should had AGS.
Kept buying PTS after 28th snapshot until I realised that since I don't care about short term liquidity much I should buy AGS.
Donated to AGS later on, turns out that now AGS will not be awarded in future DACs and will get diluted?
Kept buying BTSX from the $20 mil market cap up to the $70-$80 mil market cap by giving away any bitcoins or altcoins I had left, without claiming yet any of my PTS - AGS snapshot shares.
Now BTSX seems to be again where it shouldn't...At market cap of $45 mil. I don't know if I should sell DNS to buy more cheap BTSX or BTSX will crash so I should just keep my DNS..
Seriously...There is no way I can evaluate my position...I feel I am where I was exactly 1 year ago...
I am a very small fish in here, not a very important shareholder but that doesn't mean that my expectations are not enormous for the next years to come. And now I just don't know what to do...

Why people are dumping BTSX since now the proposal is to unite all DACs under 1 umbrella of Bitshares? What am I missing that others don't..

Please finalise the rules!

The dump we've seen now is most likely the "BTSX should be bitcoin" crowd dumping in reaction to the announcement of share dilution. As someone with a significat amount of BTSX who've lost quite a bit so far, I'll say that this is probably the bottom, unless there are inflation-scared investors left who simply havent seen the announcement yet, I think the rest of us understand that BTSX/BTS will be strengthened overall in the long term.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention.... what to do?
We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.

One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of  20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards  pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.

Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees'  1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 12:31:16 pm by crypto_prometheus_81 »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I like the sound of this but there's some things I'm not clear on.

My understanding:

This is about I3's focus.  I3 launches dacs.  All I3 dacs use the same core business model of Bitshares of issuing shares and promoting a stable bitasset which is created though collateralized shorting.  Even though dacs may be in completely different industries (voting, banking), because they all work by promoting a bitasset(s) they end up being in competition, when really it's better that they work together on bitasset promotion, and compete with their real competitors which are other companies in their industry, e.g BTSX is competing with banks, VOTE is competing with other voting systems, not each other. 

What I don't understand:

 - Is the VOTE dac an independent dac (like peertracks) or does this merger give BTSX holders a stake in it?  Or does VOTE cease to exist as a dac and its features just become something Bitshares can do?
 - Does this mean there will be 1 Bitshares blockchain?  All bitassets will be collateralized by the same shares, no competing chains apart from with independent dacs?
 - Will I3 release new dacs? Or because their work will now be on the same blockchain, these new dacs are actually just new features?
 - Should there be a contract written up between i3 and the Bitshares blockchain so ensure they can't launch any competing chains with competing bitassets? (maybe a stupid idea I don't know).
 - In the future, will stakeholders vote on which features they want I3 to work on?

If my understanding is wrong please correct me.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 12:25:29 pm by matt608 »

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
The only way to know if the propose changes is good is to check the BTSX market price.
If it's going up, that is YES

So far the 'NO' vote wins.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 12:22:40 pm by joele »