Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once

[Shentist]

if inflation is really a big problem maybe my proposal

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9858.msg128154#msg128154

could be doing his job.

to explain it in short

enable some bitAssets to get some "privilege" to collect fees

assume we want a connection to Open Bazaar

1. I3 will create this bitAsset just call it "Open Bazaar Gateway"
2. this bitAsset has the privilige to collect extra fees of 100% of the fees the delegates gets
3. now I3 can fund this project by selling the created bitAsset on the intern exchange without inflation of BTSX

with this solution we have the ability to get new money from people to start new projects without delution of the main shares BTSX

it's like we can create under our umbrella holding BTSX new smaller companys with a small purpose

[matt608]

The protoDAC model is not abandoned.  BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community.  These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.

The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time.  Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.

Oh, so there will be snapshots of BTS for third party dacs to distribute some of their shares to?  Nice   How will that work with TITAN, can it still be done?

[Stan]

I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.

But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.

More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)

Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.

Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future.  And why are third party dacs getting help?  If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all.  I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.

Edit:  Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?

Edit:  just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs!  Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?

The protoDAC model is not abandoned.  BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community.  These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.

The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time.  Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.

[stuartcharles]

A couple of things:

I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.

What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?

Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.

I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer. 

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

The opportunity appears now.

some more clarification please?

Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized. 

By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility.  We make no apologies for playing to that strength.  Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded.  Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns.  We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers.  Buy when they sell.

If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. 

Maybe the frustration comes from creating an inflammatory thread like this with out giving us the full picture. That is not telling us the "secret sauce recipe". I understand the tactical advantage in keeping secrets but i have no idea what the tactical advantage of starting of a discussion like this but keeping the best reason for doing it to your selves.

Saying that you can't be good at everything, i trust in the your vision and competitive nature,  i wouldn't dream of letting go of any of my stake.

[nomoreheroes7]

Get big, then divide. 
Don't divide, then try to get big.

Wise words... .

I love today. Mass buying opportunities + great news for the future -- what a combination.

[Stan]

Funny how people who wants one bitUSD for all chains are opposed to one DAC proposition...
.  So you want Bytemaster to work on one DAC you want one universal bitUSD or whatever bitAsset, But you don't like this proposition....

I'll summarize my understanding of the two options our community have. I may be wrong in my understanding, especially because we don't have much information on the one DAC technical proposition.

1.We have  one DAC and all business model will be developed  on this DAC(Vote and Play and maybe DNS)  let's call this DAC :  Bitshares
This same idea it is developed at a furious pace with lots of funding by a competitor  I'm sure you all heard about them: Ethereum. So if you know how Ethereum works, well it the same idea with Bitshares.

So what would  Bitshares advantages/disadvantages be I will only cover the most debated parts(but not the ags/pts part)  :

- you'll have just one token bts instead of many tokens (vote,dns,play etc). (I may be wrong about that tough)
- you'll have one unique  bitAsset, i.e.  bitUSD will be used by all others businesses, So you go to play a game, you download the PLAY game wallet, bitUSD is integrated already you just use it.
The absolutely amazing part about that is all your bitAssets are issued in only one place. This I can't stress how important is this part. AND this could be technically accomplished only under one Bitshare Dac proposition.
-you'll have one team working for Bitshare and so you'll have Bytemaster full attention dedicated in one place.
- Bitshares will be turing complete.

If(big if here)  this could be done it would be an amazing achievement, and this should be the way to go. By the time Etherum will be finishing development, you'll already have a Turing complete platform with working applications on it. 

The unknowns/disadvantages : 
- Bytemaster always said that one chain to rule them all, it is not scalable. And that why Bitshare chose to take multiple chain DAC option.
Now I'm thinking this is a major change not only technical but also at philosophical approach level. So  I'm thinking  maybe somehow  he found a way to technically solve the scalability issue, has he ?
- How long it will take to be achieved ?
-How it will affect BitshareX, DNS, PLAY ? 

2. The other option we have is to not change nothing of course.

-every new chain will have its own unique token(i.e notes)
-no worry about scalability
- bitAssets will be issued in ALL  DAC's that needs a stable bitAsset, not only in Bitshare X. Please understand, with this approach, this is the only way to do it. Could not be technically done any different. I.e you'll have bitUSDmusic, bitUSDdns bitUSDvote etc. The topic was discussed at length in the Vote tread.

So if I judge by the tread about the Voting DAC, most of you, don't like this approach at all. The problem is, for some reason, we  understood and imagine that the bitUSD will only be issued in Bitsharex and every DAC will used it from there. This could not be done as it is now.
In  my opinion BitshareX is still absolutely the best thing since Bitcoin but of course one chain Bitshares could be even better.

There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.

I think the one chain approach has it own problem but the advantages are far more beneficial than the disadvantages.

The question is when you choose to encounter these issues.

Right now there is plenty of room to scale on one chain and a bunch of separate chains are vulnerable.
Later, when we out-grow one chain, we will have the network effect to do spin-offs that have instant critical mass.

Get big, then divide. 
Don't divide, then try to get big.

[amatoB]

1. Reducing the Complexity of the BitShares Ecosystem

Collapse AGS and PTS into Genesis, and Genesis into BitShares X.
Collapse BitShares X, Y, Z, .. into BitShares X, and simply call it "BitShares."

2. Funding the BitShares Ecosystem

Vote in BitShares for the issuance of new shares going to elected Delegates.
New DACs can be birthed with ICOs, giving samples to Genesis / BTS holders.

3. Marketing the BitShares Ecosystem

Elected Delegates can propose marketing and raise funds for their projects.
Embedded referral program giving new users 10% back on buying bitUSD
Issue new shares to subsidize YIELD for various bitAssets in the first x months.

Questions

What DACs specifically will, or could be, collapsed into BitShares?
--Would there be different wallets, and if not would it not clutter?
--Wouldn't it be difficult to scale, and if so what is the long term plan?

could be done as you wrote it.

- what will be happen with DNS, vote, music etc.? how do we "collapse" them into BTS?

what is confusing me ist the fact, that bytemaster was in the past extreme against "one blockchain" because he believed one blockchain can not support the transaction load. what is about this reason you said Ethereum will fail?

"Collapse" is a poor choice of words.  This would be a merger.  Mergers are done when companies are considered stronger together than apart.  One or two other chains would be merged to share features, the most important of which are common bitAssets and complementary network effect. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It's reassuring to know that the merger would selectively target one or two chains and not indiscriminately unify all of the DACS under one umbrella. However, I still have problems with the proposal as it was originally stated. The ending of PTS and AGS is particularly problematic.

1. "Buying out" PTS and AGS for 10% each would be unfair to these early donors (who supported Bitshares during its darkest hour from March till July) since this would not really be consistent with the valuations that Bytemaster expected under the alternative "secret sauce" plan involving VOTE. Bytemaster's stated expectation from a couple of days ago was that the Voting DAC would help provide the network effect for BitsharesX and would have reached the same scale as BitsharesX. Given that expectation, wouldn't a fair buy-out price provide PTS and AGS at least half of what they would've gotten under the Vote allocation, i.e., 15% = 30%/2? Furthermore, this largely ignores the value of future DACs that have not been developed yet but that were part of the claim going to PTS and AGS under the social consensus. Note that I'm not saying that a buyout of PTS and AGS would be good, but rather that the buyout scheme as originally proposed would be neither fair nor consistent.

2. By killing off PTS and AGS, wouldn't Bytemaster's incentives to help develop future DACs be eliminated? Who then would develop DACs like lending, insurance, etc., which themselves have blockbuster potential but would need the right mix of talent and capital to succeed?

[xeroc]

If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. 

[vegolino]

Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized. 

By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility.  We make no apologies for playing to that strength.  Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded.  Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns.  We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers.  Buy when they sell.

If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. 

 

[Stan]

A couple of things:

I for one dumped my PTS to go all in on BTSX because that was the DAC I believed in. Under your original model users would invest in just the DAC's they believed in and not invest in the ones they didn't.

What happened to profitable DAC'S funding themselves, paying their own way so to speak?

Remind me why we are diluting btsx to help PTS? These users have the liquidity advantage and are free to move into any DAC they like.

I looked at BTSX as a DAC on the edge of breaking out. The reason being "the big marketing push" , the creation of on and off ramps through the partnership with a bank or more likely credit union.Your argument is bitshares is to complex which is valid.Mine is that we have done nothing to educate (other then community lead efforts) the average user. Marketing up to this point seems to be completely centered at attracting big money, not education of the consumer. 

So why dilute btsx when is is getting ready to actually be marketed and partnerships are on the cusp of being formed? What is the need to change the plan before we give the original one a chance to succeed?

The opportunity appears now.

some more clarification please?

Once Bytemaster & his trusted mates discovered the "secret sauce recipe" and realized how to gain orders of magnitude faster penetration into the market by exploiting certain opportunities that have recently appeared, it became clear that the opportunities had to be seized. 

By now people should know that what they are investing in is the products of a very agile team that will stay ahead of the competition chiefly because of that agility.  We make no apologies for playing to that strength.  Those that are able to HODL will be rewarded.  Those who can't will fall off at the hairpin turns.  We will always have people who have climbed on board for the wrong reasons and they are the ones who will eject during the high-G maneuvers.  Buy when they sell.

If you want slow and steady, invest in Coca Cola. 

[matt608]

I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.

But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.

More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)

Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.

Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future.  And why are third party dacs getting help?  If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all.  I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.

Edit:  Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?

Edit:  just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs!  Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?

[teenagecheese]

Whatever happens I am sure that is does not make sense to have each DAC with its own asset trading just to facilitate having bitUSD. The establishment of a peg and creation of value for bitUSD is already happening on bitshares-x. This makes sense as bitshares-x is an exchange, that is what it is suppose to do: financial stuff. Bitshares VOTE/DNS/PLAY/MUSIC/etc. should not be even considering having an asset exchange. That is not their purpose and divides the market and weakens bitUSD.

If you do end up creating a single entity called bitshares, I think it is still important to have some kind of division of products weather it be in separate wallets or DACs or whatever. For example, the name and service of bitshares exchange should still exist. It makes sense. People know what it is instantly. Same should be true for all the other bitshares brands

[Stan]

I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.

This is not "one chain to rule them all".   
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)

Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.

But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.

More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)

Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.

[arhag]

I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.

My understanding is that they do still apply, but in the long term. The multiple DACs model with their own BitAssets traded using ACCT is a great future-proof idea to deal with scalability. But it only matters in the future when the transaction volume becomes too much for a single blockchain to handle. We are no where near the limits of DPOS. It is far more beneficial for us to be united in these early stages. When scalability becomes a problem (transactions fees start to get too high), we can then split the DAC into multiple DACs that specialize in different industries.

P.S. oco101, thanks for the plug here:

There was a proposition made by arhag : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg114390#msg114390 that will solve the multiple bitAssets issue and you still have different blockchains. But of course there are trade-offs.

My own idea is starting to grow on me more and more. The trade-offs may not be so horrible, but I would love to hear what other people think about the trade-offs.

[oco101]

I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?

Fully agree.