Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[mf-tzo]

@ 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..

[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!

[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.

[Rune]

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.

[Rune]

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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[emski]

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).

[mf-tzo]

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?

 

[pgbit]

>
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?

[Stan]

These are the kind of changes you don't make after a launch. It's way too much change for the market to handle and it's not the kind of change anyone wants. The market is speaking.

In my opinion if you want unity then network the DACs using technical means. Don't change the names, don't change the internal structures or centralize it. Allow all DACs to pay a fee to join this network of DACs and use that network as a sort of support network for all the DACs.

It is a company. 
It is competing in a ruthless Darwinian evolutionary environment. 
It must continuously adapt or die. 
Arguments against change are arguments against adapting. 
The dinosaurs already tried that. 

[voldemort628]

>
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?

any decision to up the total supply cap need to pass a vote by stakeholders. so worry not, stakeholders *will* (hopefully and rationally) decide what's best for all.

[520Bit]

It seems to me the Chinese community is panicking right now. It needs to be communicated clearly to them as well.

*agreed* ..  I seems they misinterpret the term "proposal"

BTSX is good and global, why worry about Chinese behavior? The community do not want to see a platform only Chinese support.

[liondani]

What sais/thinks toast about the proposal?
How is he imagine the future for KeyID now?
I am very interested to hear a DAC "owner" thoughts...
What think's COB about the proposal?....