Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[Empirical1.1]

It seems that we are all happy with the proposal (as it makes lot of sense to make the developers and the market compete with each other). Now the main and complex issue is how to make everyone fairly happy.

Will it be 25% PTS 25% AGS 50% BTSX ? Or..............  It will be good to see the numbers in another thread and see the reaction.

Disclaimer: I have AGS (pre and post), BTSX and a small amount of PTS.

Only fair way is proportional to pts market cap vs btsx.

Not really. If you don't give PTS a set % to value. People would just spike the likely thin PTS sell wall before snapshot to maximise BTS equity. PTS could end up having a temporary CAP of $20 million and get 33% of BTS equity.

The value they had at the time of this proposal posting could be used?

I would have avoided this situation. (Or have done a DPOS crypto-currency constitution enshrined hard cap fork (Athena Coin) for the non-dilutionists, particularly the Chinese market.)  But my approach to the current scenario...

(Disclosure: 0 PTS, AGS & BTSX about equal % with most AGS purchased after Feb 28th.)

I would put forward a resolution that includes 3 elements

1. Add dilution to BitShares X
2. Drop the X
3. Option to add more features besides BitAssets (Insurance, gaming, DNS, Vote etc.)

While losing some non-dilutionists, BTSX shareholders are free to do and agree to that independently of the BitShares ecosystem via delegate approval. I would get that in place first.

[davidpbrown]

..In my experience, focusing on multiple things always, without exception, results in everything failing.

Indeed, it's a question of how many devs there are focused on what. If there are more devs because there is more going on here that interests them, then that is equally a resource that then helps support intellectual and financial capital.

[donkeypong]

Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds.   So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval. 

However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2

If that's a weakness, then it is a weakness of even the best governance structures. Get a roomful of human beings together and there's no way they agree on everything; we wouldn't be human if we were programmed to agree all the time. The most democratic systems provide for majority rule; it's the only way to get things done. Protection of minority rights and opportunity to let everyone participate is about the best you can do to honor those who don't agree with the majority's decision.

[Pheonike]

Because the barrier of entry is a lot lower for a competitor. Google search algorithm was secret so it was harder for someone to just copy.  That gave more time to perfect it and branch out.

[Method-X]

Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline. Focus on your bread and butter...

Perhaps because Bitassets seem less exciting as they are less ambitious. Perhaps because of the potential network effect that might follow with PeerTracks and Vote etc. Engaging a wide audience is important relative to the first mover advantage. It's perhaps hard to do everything well but it's equally hard to predict which elements will go large. Also the community of ideas progressing is a huge asset in itself.. it's a statement of confidence. That there is so much variety, coupled with the actioning of PTS/AGS is what has been so exciting about BitShares.

The problem with this reasoning is it doesn't prioritize intellectual and financial capital. Both are scarce resources and must be allocated efficiently. In my experience, focusing on multiple things always, without exception, results in everything failing.

[davidpbrown]

Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline. Focus on your bread and butter...

Perhaps because Bitassets seem less exciting as they are less ambitious. Perhaps because of the potential network effect that might follow with PeerTracks and Vote etc. Engaging a wide audience is important relative to the first mover advantage. It's perhaps hard to do everything well but it's equally hard to predict which elements will go large. Also the community of ideas progressing is a huge asset in itself.. it's a statement of confidence. That there is so much variety, coupled with the actioning of PTS/AGS is what has been so exciting about BitShares.

[Method-X]

Why not focus exclusively on BitAssets? I've always lived by the pareto principle (aka 80/20 rule: 80% of results come from 20% of efforts). Bytemasters idea of market pegged assets were the reason this whole thing started in the first place. Somewhere along the line, everyone got waaayyyy ahead of themselves and started fantasizing about DNS, voting, gaming, insurance, music, before fully fleshing out the original idea... Since BitAssets probably have the greatest value proposition by FAR and the greatest chance at succeeding, why not focus exclusively on that innovation first? Google search launched in 1997 and they didn't start launching other products until early 2001. Google timeline. Focus on your bread and butter...

[Rune]

Talking with them today

So stoked to get them on board!!!!!

This will be the beginning of an exponential increase in crypto development. Once our funding model ramps up we will have all the smartest people in the space working together to create the ultimate product. It will be absurdly powerful.

[arhag]

I have some concerns for the superdac...

let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:

super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)

let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20%  efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures

and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.

Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the  majority of his funds to go?

Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...

so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... 

Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds.   So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval. 

However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2

I would also like to point out that there is a lot of infrastructure common to all of those different DAC industries that has yet to be developed (and one can even argue yet to be successfully funded). By pooling stake together into BTS we make everyone pay for the common infrastructure instead of letting some DACs free ride off the dilution of investment in other DACs.

I'm talking about common infrastructure like:

• User-friendly multisig and cold storage
• Lightweight clients
• Mobile and browser clients
• Better systems for shareholders to reach consensus on DAC decisions (and even better ways for clients to determine delegate slates to vote for)
• Reputation/Web-of-trust/KeyID functionality
• Consumer/merchant marketing and education on BitAssets and their desirability
• Creating a more regulatory-friendly environment for exchanges, on-ramps, and off-ramps in various important jurisdictions
• Turing complete scripts and smart contracts

[bytemaster]

I have some concerns for the superdac...

let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:

super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)

let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20%  efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures

and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.

Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the  majority of his funds to go?

Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...

so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... 

Voters vote on delegates... delegates direct funds.   So Funds will be allocated to delegates based upon total shareholder approval. 

However you are right, that not everyone will agree on the allocation of funds... and this is a weakness... on the other hand all systems are stronger together due to n^2

[liondani]

I have some concerns for the superdac...

let's say in 3 months the superdac is 5 dacs merged, for example:

super dac=vote+x+dns+play+insurance
so
super dac's value (market cap) = vote+x+dns+play+insurance value (market caps combined)

let's assume your efforts and the funds you spent for the super dac has this priority’s on developing the internal "futures":
40% efforts/time/funds to vote futures
20%  efforts/time/funds to X futures
20% efforts/time/funds to music futures
15% efforts/time/funds to dns futures
5% effort/time/funds to insurance futures

and I am a NEW potential investor and I want to invest on the bts superdac only because I think that the killer application/dac is the dns that is included there and in reality I
think that the other ones have no big potential.

Why should I invest $100 when I know that only $15 will go to the dns part of the project/superdac?
Is it possible for a new investor to "choose" somehow where the majority of his fund will go? Or will it depended only from the dev team?
Have you think about an option for example when somebody invest's on the superdac (with bts) that he can the same time vote where he wants the  majority of his funds to go?

Imagine every bts holder can vote with his bts power where they want the devs to give more time/efforts/funds...

so if the majority of investors for example thinks the devs must give priority to the music integrated dac and secondly to the vote integrated dac they should be some how confident that gonna happen and it's not the exclusivity of bytemaster or toast or who ever decision .... 

[matt608]

There is no freedom if you depend on something. Especially if it is person. However marvelous he is.
I'm selling my 100k, not because it is not profitable anymore, but because I saw how dangerous it is to be dependent on another.

Guys, please, question authority.

That is fair enough.  Dependency on a particular person or central team is a weakness, but the network supporting it is dencentralized (DPOS) and it's an evolving system.  As it evolves it should give more and more power to stakeholders to vote on features/changes, and be less dependant on the direction of one leader (BM).  Given more time BTS should become strong enough, with its fingers in multiple industries, to survive leadership changes and become a "true" DAC.  It will grow in multiple directions with different teams around the world working on different features, if the delegates, as chosen by the stakeholders, approve their inclusion.  This combining means the rocket is well fuelled for launch and able to enter a stable orbit, where it's flight path is self-sustaining.

Even bitcoin was completely dependant on the core devs while it was being developed, and it can't evolve to survive anywhere near as well as BTS can.

Best of luck.

[Strip]

There is no freedom if you depend on something. Especially if it is person. However marvelous he is.
I'm selling my 100k, not because it is not profitable anymore, but because I saw how dangerous it is to be dependent on another.

Guys, please, question authority.

[emski]

I assume the AGS market cap will be the same as PTS

Yes.  No other way to measure it.

So this is forced buy of all PTS/AGS at fixed past prices.
This will likely lead to the situation explained here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10189.0 .
Am I correct ?

[bytemaster]

Talking with them today