Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[bytemaster]

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.   

[betax]

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.

[stuartcharles]

I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS.  I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.

I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS?  Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?

AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs.  If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS.  Therefore they will be useless and have no value.  Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to. 

What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team.  Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to  (now) all BTS(x) holders

This makes good sense James212 as i3 are large PTS/AGS holders they will also receive extra development funds and there is  then no need for any dilution/share issuing.

[Chuckone]

I honestly dislike the general panicking mood around BM's proposal.

As it was mentionned before, survival of the fittest is the name of the game in those new and unchartered territories. Being agile and able to react/adapt quickly is definitely an edge, but I do also understand those reluctant to change, since change is always a source of uncertainties. And uncertainty equals a price drop, because the speculators are off to a new and more promising opportunity for a quick buck.

And there's also those who believes they "lose" in the new model, or that they don't receive their fair share compared to other stake holders.

Part of the proposal aims at increasing market adoption, and from all those pages of posts I do believe most of the people agree that simplifying the BTS DAC to one point of entry, and avoiding competing -for ressources and market shares- with ourself is a really good idea.

Dilution is still a litigious point. Some are for, others are against it. I also understand where those who are against it come frome. Giving Bitshares the ability to dilute for funding directed to market share increase (and thus, an increase in shareholders value) shouldn't be seen as bad, as again it's only giving Bitshares the necessary tools to survive in the long run against REAL competition.

So now, I'll get to the point.

Instead of panicking and threatening to jump ship (and some people jumped ship anyway), why don't people take time to see the proposal as it is, instead of saying: "Well, I won't be compensated enough compared to others and I will "lose" if that proposal is passed"??

The objective of this proposal is for Bitshares to SURVIVE and PROSPER in a ruthless and unforgiving world, which in turn will benefit any and all shareholders in the long run. The details of who gets what should be discussed, yes, but why when I'm looking at all the forum posts I get the feeling that some people are "missing" the point that this is a HUGE turning point? They worry about what will be their short term benefits and how they are unfairly treated compared to other stake holders instead of focusing on the fact that the core idea in this proposal is in everybody's best interest? (Or at least aims to be)

This attitude just isn't constructive at this point in time. Those not patient enough to read through all the posts to make their own idea only get a negative vibe, as those not satisfied are always speaking the loudest.

I still see discussions about the details as something constructive, but I really, really dislike the "It's not fair" attitude. I would much prefer to see "good idea, we'll all get rich in the long run. Now how should we split the spoils to make everybody happy?"

*Disclaimer: I'm a post Feb. 28 AGS and PTS investor and relatively recent BTSX investor.

[James212]

I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS.  I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.

I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS?  Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?

AGS/PTS value comes from all future DACs.  If these future dacs are now to be a division of bst(x) then we are TRANSFERING the value that used to belong to PTS/AGS.  Therefore they will be useless and have no value.  Bts(x) will need to compensate the AGE,PTS holders with new BTS<- this is where the value was transferred to. 

What is stated above relates to dacs launched by I3/the bitshares team.  Third parties can still use the bitshares tool kit and pay a percentage to  (now) all BTS(x) holders

[Akado]

why not part of the fees (up to each delegate) are used for the funds? Though I honestly don't think that would be enough. I'm just brainstorming here

[bytemaster]

would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?

Yes but far too centralized.

I don't support any further ags style campaigns.  Even peer tracks. 

[James212]

I love the new proposal, but hate the confusion/instability. Too many delegates, that's true. Incoherent and embarrassing POW for PTS, that's true. Fixing illiquid AGS, great. One BitUSD to rule them all, huge. And I'm all for patience for the marketing side.

But the functional 1.0 wallet must be released, and the marketing campaign be launched at some point. i3 will have to focus on development. I hope this proposal will pass, and after that, no more messing around...

Re "Fixing illiquid AGS" It just occurred to me that AGS is already liquid in that we gave PTS and BTS to i3 in return for AGS and those BTS and PTS were given as liquid assets to fund development.

AGS is not liquid. There is currently no exit path for people holding AGS.

[Mysto]

@amencon
you obviously didn't read the Vote DAC thread if you think the community has nothing to do with this decision.

[bytemaster]

would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?

Yes but far too centralized. 

[Akado]

would an AGS 2.0 event be viable to gather the funds in need?

[matt608]

I'm in favour of the proposal so long as we got VOTE on board BTS.  I haven't looked into DNS so I don't know how big a deal it is, but merging with competition which then becomes a feature is a great move.

I'm a bit confused as to why merging VOTE (and DNS?) with BTSX (which will become BTS) is connected to acquiring PTS+AGS?  Is it because VOTE is (was) an independent DAC and BM had an obligation to support it due to obligations to PTS+AGS holders, so if PTS+AGS are brought on board BTSX THEN VOTE should be too so that vote isn't competing with BTSX which would contain the PTS + AGS holders?

[stuartcharles]

I love the new proposal, but hate the confusion/instability. Too many delegates, that's true. Incoherent and embarrassing POW for PTS, that's true. Fixing illiquid AGS, great. One BitUSD to rule them all, huge. And I'm all for patience for the marketing side.

But the functional 1.0 wallet must be released, and the marketing campaign be launched at some point. i3 will have to focus on development. I hope this proposal will pass, and after that, no more messing around...

Re "Fixing illiquid AGS" It just occurred to me that AGS is already liquid in that we gave PTS and BTS to i3 in return for AGS and those BTS and PTS were given as liquid assets to fund development.

[JoeyD]

Amencon, mat608 and mf-tzo, would you be prepared to also repeat your points on some of these mumble-hangouts with Bytemaster?

You all touch on some very valid concerns and I would like to have your perspectives be part of those real-time discussion as well. Especially since some of you feel that I did not do a good enough job defending the multiple separate chain idea.

I admit that I now favor the idea of having separate DACs be developed more independently from the bitshares team, because I think having only Dacs developed by the  bitshares team would be just as bad as having a single blockchain. So my expectation of the future is now that trying to help bitshares reach more success in the short term, will boost adoption rate of separate blockchains and (D)Pos by others more, than having a crippled small team try and create a complete ecosystem from day one, complete with competitors. I'm noticing that some famous people in the industry are looking into Pos now as well, whereas they were completely opposed to the concept not too long ago.

Also on the topic of changing course and being inconsistent, I don't completely agree with that point of view. It does not account for this being a completely new experiment, with no definitive answers. Do keep in mind that bitUsd was not a finalized or even as trusted a concept as it is now. Also because of the idea of the bitUsd mechanic of btsx being part of most of the DACs planned by bitshares in the future, which was not part of the perceived reality when the plan was to create these separate selfsufficient blockchains, the situation did change from that time and it does make sense to reevaluate the path with this new development. What path is chosen should indeed be left to the individual stakeholders and what they believe is the best road forward.

Would be nice if people talked and ask questions first before panicking and selling before anything is even close to being decided. For one the details on how the percentage stakes would be divided has not even come up.

[matt608]

Why do you have any confirmation from DNS,Music teams that they will join up with BTS?

Peertracks is independent, DNS I'm not sure.