Author Topic: Proposal to Resolve a Million Issues at Once  (Read 108787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Any confirmation from vote team on VOTE being 'absorbed'?

Offline bytemaster


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

Yes.  No other way to measure it. 
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.

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile
I assume the AGS market cap will be the same as PTS
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Yes.  We should use an average of pts and btsx prior to the proposal. 
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.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile

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.

True. It should be a "stylized" market cap. Around 5 million usd makes sense.

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile

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?

To make it fairer it could be used the average of the past 5 / 3 days. Or today's as both have reached bottom.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline davidpbrown

I don't know where we're up to but wonder whether all this suggests that bitUSD purchases and shorting will be suspended for the short period of actioning change? Otherwise the obvious purchase of bitUSD+ might leave holders of BTSX at a disadvantage?
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile

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? 

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile

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.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG

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.
This is in no way fair for many reasons:
1st You force all PTS holders to sell at current prices.
2nd Price is manipulative and you could significantly increase it.
3rd You will break the 10/10/80 initial promise.

Maybe there is no "fair" solution but there should be something "fair enough" ?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
So excited!  Let's supercharge BM and the development teams, bring them all in together working towards and focused on the super DAC! Boom!

If we've been building rockets.....every stage (innovation) so far has moved us closer to lift off.  What an incredible year, so many accomplishments. 

Now we have a chance to prove BM's consensus modelling and implementation whilst maintaining transparency and integrity.  Imagine how valuable the market will find a crypto company that has a track record of effectively navigating these dangerous early waters and adapting fluidly in order to improve itself?! 

Let's try not to quibble over allocations please.....let's just get moving on it!  This community is awesome, within 48hrs, the spectrum of emotion and the passion is incredible....now we need to back each other, trust BM and Stan and hold the line. 


Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
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.

My understanding is that there will in fact  be funds made available to the new BTS resulting from the merger with PTS/AGS, However the issue of financing will still me on the table.  Structuring BTS so that it can issue value when needed will allow it to monitize its efforts and ideas much,much more effectively.  That is why BM says the BTS(X) will grow much more slowly without the ability to raise capital, and growing too slowly could very well be the death nail for BTS(X).   Remember this is a race to gather network effect.   Network effect is 90% of the determining factor for who will succeed and it is a zero sum game!
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 01:40:20 pm by James212 »
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
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.

 +5% +5%. ....well said!
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile

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.

Excellent, that makes lot of sense.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Even though parts of the marketing cannot be divulged... If the majority of this proposal of one BTS largely goes through,

Is it possible to get an ETA on when the BitAsset marketing & some related announcements may start?