Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 66782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares


YES! Lets do it! 

Right now we have too many moving parts.  Too much confusion for new people.
Too many different projects pulling everyone in all directions.

 +5% +5%

Yes I especially like the idea of bringing BitShares under one banner and bootstrapping one main BitUSD to the world. (Before someone else does.) Let's do it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsujXw267XQ









Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Would it be reasonable to consider using the BTSX stake owned from the PTS owned donated during the AGS auction pre 2/28?

Those funds should be considered to be shares owned by the DAC itself. Those could be sent to the current PTS/AGS holders without causing dilution and without a hardfork to enable share-printing.

Does anybody know the numbers in this case? Would it be anywhere near a fair value for a buyout of PTS and AGS?

So then you just cause extra problems with social consensus and in the end we end up inflating more to cover it ?   

What is the point ?   It is the value donated post February 28th that mainly needs to be addressed. 

There is no way it could be near fair value let alone market value.

edit - Actually I suppose I am acknowledging the fact that I believe this will result in a net gain of aggregate value.  I think with inflation the main problem will be one of trust.  (which others have already stated..)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 05:51:09 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani

pollux

  • Guest
Would it be reasonable to consider using the BTSX stake owned from the PTS owned donated during the AGS auction pre 2/28?

Those funds should be considered to be shares owned by the DAC itself. Those could be sent to the current PTS/AGS holders without causing dilution and without a hardfork to enable share-printing.

Does anybody know the numbers in this case? Would it be anywhere near a fair value for a buyout of PTS and AGS?

sumantso

  • Guest
The biggest problem right now is the 28 Feb snapshot. As we get farther away from the date, it keeps looking worse (and is generating a lot of heartache amongst investors) and creating more pressure on Dan and co.

The logical order of releases would have been Test DPOS -> Real DPOS Coin -> BTS Me -> BTS X. I have a suggestion (will probably be hated by most) which might get around this.

For starters, PTS mining and AGS donation has to be stopped and all these along with the Feb 28th snapshot merged in a single coin of 4m supply (lets call it Tokens) and the social consensus would state that at least 20% of any DAC should honour these Tokens (instead of 10% each for PTS and AGS). Also, the Feb 28 snapshot will NOT be used for BTS X.

So, the distribution will be
1> Some 1.8m for PTS will become 1.8m Tokens
2> Roughly 1.1m AGS will become 1.1m Tokens
3> The remaining 1.1m can be distributed amongst Feb 28 snapshot and/or award Tokens directly to I3 which will be used only as payments/bounties (and can't be sold directly by I3).

The ratios can be adjusted accordingly to try and even out the playing field amongst the various types of investors. In this scheme, I think all the sets are being accommodated.
1> PTS holders will still get the same portion.
2> Ditto for AGS but as an added bonus they are liquid (BM is trying to get some form of BTS XT out quickly so that those AGSers can have some form of liquid asset).
3> PTS and AGSers before Feb 28th, who got in at a higher price due to the promise of BTS X will be partly compensated by getting awarded extra tokens. If you think that is not enough, that snapshot may also be used to award BTS Me, which is expected to be the first DAC with some features.

In doing so, initially BM releases a test version to try out DPOS. If it works well, the conversion into Tokens happen, which will mean it will be tested on a real coin listed on exchanges and having a good market cap. At this point, a mining pool which awards Tokens can also be set up. Remember, Tokens at this point will be the first DPOS coin, and with the rage about PoS these days, having a supposedly superior (we have to see how it works in practice), we should get a lot of buzz.

Then, BTS Me with some functionality (and maybe honouring Feb 28th snapshot) gets released, and after that every DAC honours Tokens directly - no more having families of DACs with with its own ProtoDACs to provide distribution and all. This simplifies matters to a large extent as you know how may of these Tokens you have and so what percentage you will get - no more trying to calculate separately for PTS, AGS or even BTS XT (for future BTS Xs). Of course, future DAC creators may award differently, like 20% for Tokens and, say, 10% for Bitshares Me, but that is his own choice.

Even if you guys think I am not bonkers, still there is room to adjust the numbers/ratios to even it out amongst the various investors. I just like the idea of having a simple, elegant system to award me the DACs (instead of the complicated mess we have now). The biggest benefit, IMO, is that the infamous Feb 28 snapshot monkey is off the back.

*goes back to smoking that weird plant thingy*

Quoting yours truly from back in April. Got laughed at; funny how things turn out, eh?



The February 28th snapshot is cast in concrete.

This concerns me as I've broken concrete with my bare hands. :)

You haven't seen the titanium rebar with 800ksi Nycon-PVA-RF-4000 High Performance Macro Fiber reinforcement we added to the mix:


No, Stan, I haven't; it seems to be of a surprisingly poor quality.

zerosum

  • Guest

and new DNS issued
2) NOTES issued via their presale...

I think the primary issue people are concerned about is where my time and energy will be devoted... to a lesser extent where toast is focused... and to an even lesser extent where notes and vote are focused. 

We cannot fix everyone (sometimes you make a bet and lose)...

For me personally:
- the bolded,
- switching, as a whole, to a  new (and totally unclear ) project as the best great thing since sliced bread - especially keeping in mind that BTSX is the project of the century already;
- switching to a project with a way off (and I mean totally illogical) distribution, as the main one (or one of top 2) projects we focus on.

Were (hopefully as in the past) the top 3 concerns/disagreements I had yesterday. Those 3 were followed by close 4th, even with all the arguments for, with the idea that it is great every DAC to have its own exchange and similarly important bitUSD....

All 4 seemed addressed in the OP.

So, I , in general, strongly agree with this new proposal!

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
I am trying to consolidate down to one plate from many.   Clean up the entire ecosystem... give people one option to get involved.. Buy BitShares.    No more explaining allocations, no more snapshots, etc... just keep it simple.

+5% This is definitely what I wanted to see for sure. I see you as somewhat of a Steve Jobs type so once you start thinking about how to simplify everything (something Jobs was very good at), dominoes will start falling in the right way.

Offline eagleeye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.   

If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide.   If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can.  Follow the network effect is all I have to say.

Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.

The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.

No one really cares about PTS's problems largely because it was never meant to be a currency.  So everyone could deal with slow ass confirmation times.  Why would there be a "bail out" ?   There is potentially an incredible uptapped area once you start receiving massive adoption + power of prediction markets.

It isn't about a 'merger metaphor'.  It is about taking care of previous obligations to maintain integrity going forward while being as adaptive as possible to find the optimal approach to maximize our chances of winning.

I want to say God is Great in every religion possible to cover our bases, but I'm drawing a blank real quickly.... and google doesn't help.

 +5%

I listen to gamey.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.   

If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide.   If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can.  Follow the network effect is all I have to say.

Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.

The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.

No one really cares about PTS's problems largely because it was never meant to be a currency.  So everyone could deal with slow ass confirmation times.  Why would there be a "bail out" ?   There is potentially an incredible uptapped area once you start receiving massive adoption + power of prediction markets.

It isn't about a 'merger metaphor'.  It is about taking care of previous obligations to maintain integrity going forward while being as adaptive as possible to find the optimal approach to maximize our chances of winning.

I want to say God is Great in every religion possible to cover our bases, but I'm drawing a blank real quickly.... and google doesn't help.
I speak for myself and only myself.


Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile


My Bitshares X t-shirt will be a collectors item one day !

Allah Akbar !

 +5%

Offline Pheonike


Offline eagleeye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
They wouldn't be getting into BTSX cheap.... given the same money buying PTS or BTSX will result in an equal stake at the end of the day (assuming efficient markets)... any PTS bump would be irrational.

Hmm, I guess you are right. Okay, so then what about not crediting DNS, VOTE, and NOTE? Is it that the shareholders of those DACs are similar enough to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders that we aren't worried about market fragmentation by keeping those DACs independent and acting as "competition".

DNS / VOTE had the same snapshot.
Not talking about honoring the 30% for FMV.
NOTE is independent and will be a competitor...

So we are only talking about:
1) users who bought DNS after the snapshot and new DNS issued
2) NOTES issued via their presale...

I think the primary issue people are concerned about is where my time and energy will be devoted... to a lesser extent where toast is focused... and to an even lesser extent where notes and vote are focused. 

We cannot fix everyone (sometimes you make a bet and lose)...

We fix everyone, in 1 time or another.

The Clone Wars, have begun.

Offline bytemaster

Right now there is market demand for $5 million PTS and $50 million BTSX.... if these were two companies that "merged" the new company would likely have a value greater than the sum of their parts... rarely would the combined value go down.   

If you are referring to changing from "fixed supply" to dilution via delegates.... that is something that BTSX community will have to decide.   If someone wants to start a clone with the original 2B limit... then they can.  Follow the network effect is all I have to say.

Part of why I am not in favor of diluting for PTS/AGS stake is that I think PTS is overvalued at current rate. Maybe I'm naive for selling my PTS assuming there would be no "bail out" for its problems.

The merger metaphor is a bit broken as well. If we want to merge, shouldn't we merge with #1? I'd much prefer to give 1-10% new BTSX to BTC holders at a snapshot date.

Those BTC users are not bringing anything to the table... PTS/AGS is bringing the rest of my divided loyalties to the table and removing them from competition.  What you are suggesting is like Apple giving MSFT free shares hoping that will prevent MSFT from competing with it.   BTC is already competing with us, giving them our capital will not bring value to BTSX.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.