Be still, young Jedi

[CryptoPrometheus]

The crypto economy may be in a down-turn, but we are about to tap a whole new keg.

Cryptoberfest?

[xeroc]

The crypto economy may be in a down-turn, but we are about to tap a whole new keg.

[Stan]

Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention....What to do?

We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.

One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of  20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards  pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.

Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees'  1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)

Anyways, I do apologize for the breach of protocol  I probably shouldn't have started a new thread for this, but I just wanted to sticky a reminder that things are never as bad as they seem. 

Dilution or inflation only makes sense when your economy is growing. The total market cap of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem is shrinking. The market cap for Bitshares X is also shrinking. It makes absolutely no sense to inflate in a shrinking economy and discussing increasing the dilution during a time of dilution is a bad idea.

In my opinion Bytemaster should focus on building Bitshares X. The other DACs all depend on the success of Bitshares X. If necessary have separate crowdfunds for the other DACs like what Bitshares Music is doing but don't dilute people who hold BTSX without expecting massive market disruption.

I think when a market cap and economy is large enough then the disruption isn't so bad but when it's only small investors and there is no guarantee that the economy can survive it then it's very bad timing. This is not good timing to discuss inflation, dilution, or anything like that because the holiday season is near as well.

This means if they were to dilute or inflate right now it's possible that during the holiday season even more people will cash out.

The crypto economy may be in a down-turn, but we are about to tap a whole new keg.


 

[luckybit]

Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention....What to do?

We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.

One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of  20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards  pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.

Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees'  1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)

Anyways, I do apologize for the breach of protocol  I probably shouldn't have started a new thread for this, but I just wanted to sticky a reminder that things are never as bad as they seem. 

Dilution or inflation only makes sense when your economy is growing. The total market cap of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem is shrinking. The market cap for Bitshares X is also shrinking. It makes absolutely no sense to inflate in a shrinking economy and discussing increasing the dilution during a time of dilution is a bad idea.

In my opinion Bytemaster should focus on building Bitshares X. The other DACs all depend on the success of Bitshares X. If necessary have separate crowdfunds for the other DACs like what Bitshares Music is doing but don't dilute people who hold BTSX without expecting massive market disruption.

I think when a market cap and economy is large enough then the disruption isn't so bad but when it's only small investors and there is no guarantee that the economy can survive it then it's very bad timing. This is not good timing to discuss inflation, dilution, or anything like that because the holiday season is near as well.

This means if they were to dilute or inflate right now it's possible that during the holiday season even more people will cash out.

[Rune]

Once the superDAC BitShares has been made manifest, AGS and PTS loses their purpose. The simple economics of metcalfes law states that it will never make any economic sense to make a seperate decentralized DAC that competes with the main one since each user in the new one will be much less valuable than if they simple were added to the main network. New DACs can be created as test runs, but their features should/will eventually be rolled into the relatively large network/userbase of BTS, once they have proven to be stable and profitable.

I agree there should be a one time "buyout" of PTS and AGS, but I don't think it should be done exactly at market evaluation. BTSX holders should be compensated for the fact that they had to suffer the "inflation shock" we've seen now, and should be allowed to buy PTS and AGS at a slightly discounted rate. In the end all shareholders will benefit massively from this consolidation.

Rune, I know you are fond of referencing Metacalfe’s law  but my understanding is that this applies only to networks of like kind. How are you defining the “value” of the PTS/AGS network? AGS and PTS are not even really a DAC, but more like a digital asset, a commodity with relative scarcity, whose value in the marketplace is backed by an “ethical” social contract. BTSX will never be a direct competitor to AGS or PTS, because one is a commodity and the other more akin to a stock. My argument was that it would be detrimental to betray the “trust” in that agreement by attempting to re-issue AGS and PTS into an arrangement that reduces their future-value proposition by a factor of 6!  If I owned physical gold that I intended to use to build a circuit board, and the trustee of my gold (vault owner, or whatever) decided to betray my contract and force me to withdraw in cash, that would be an ethical (not to mention contractual) breach.  Sure, I could just take the cash and buy some gold, but what if my gold was a unique and irreplaceable alloy of gold that would replicate itself under certain conditions….you get my point. Same value, different value proposition.

I guess the prospect of the core development team launching a new DAC to compete with the existing one kinda made me snap and begin spamming metcalfe everywhere since :p

I think the value of PTS is determined by the market, it would make sense for BTSX to buy it at that rate. From the beginning buying PTS and AGS has meant trusting dan to do whatever is in your interest. If he deems the buyout to be in the interest of PTS holders then I think they basically have to go with it. If they dont trust him they should divest now.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Once the superDAC BitShares has been made manifest, AGS and PTS loses their purpose. The simple economics of metcalfes law states that it will never make any economic sense to make a seperate decentralized DAC that competes with the main one since each user in the new one will be much less valuable than if they simple were added to the main network. New DACs can be created as test runs, but their features should/will eventually be rolled into the relatively large network/userbase of BTS, once they have proven to be stable and profitable.

I agree there should be a one time "buyout" of PTS and AGS, but I don't think it should be done exactly at market evaluation. BTSX holders should be compensated for the fact that they had to suffer the "inflation shock" we've seen now, and should be allowed to buy PTS and AGS at a slightly discounted rate. In the end all shareholders will benefit massively from this consolidation.

Rune, I know you are fond of referencing Metacalfe’s law  but my understanding is that this applies only to networks of like kind. How are you defining the “value” of the PTS/AGS network? AGS and PTS are not even really a DAC, but more like a digital asset, a commodity with relative scarcity, whose value in the marketplace is backed by an “ethical” social contract. BTSX will never be a direct competitor to AGS or PTS, because one is a commodity and the other more akin to a stock. My argument was that it would be detrimental to betray the “trust” in that agreement by attempting to re-issue AGS and PTS into an arrangement that reduces their future-value proposition by a factor of 6!  If I owned physical gold that I intended to use to build a circuit board, and the trustee of my gold (vault owner, or whatever) decided to betray my contract and force me to withdraw in cash, that would be an ethical (not to mention contractual) breach.  Sure, I could just take the cash and buy some gold, but what if my gold was a unique and irreplaceable alloy of gold that would replicate itself under certain conditions….you get my point. Same value, different value proposition.

[xeroc]

Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He
cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But
BTSX obviously needs his full attention....What to do?

I see you get the "issues" Too much to do .. to few man-power

We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake”
which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea
4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately,
we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious
division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart
the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we
have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has
apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made
liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the
most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is
'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that
anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation
as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my
suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original
dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb
28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that
pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for
bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without
dishonoring the social contract.

BM is talking long-term .. from what I know, I3 still has plenty of funds.
However, 2 years from now (I made that number up) .. the funds from AGS might
(or might not) be insufficient to continue the development (take a look at
bitcoin). However BM (and the community should too) searches for a solution fo
ENSURE future funds for the development.

Delution is one option!

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain
should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no
reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be
brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be
huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list
would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated
additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the
divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am.
If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able
to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would
surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this
crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)

*agreed* .. having to proposals at the same time will make people mix up things
and over complicates discussions.

Anyway, there is plenty of talk about the future of PTS/AGS and one solution
for it is a tradable asset on BTSX calles "BitShares Genesis" (fairly recent
discussions, search the forum for it, pls)

Anyways, I do apologize for the breach of protocol  I probably shouldn't have
started a new thread for this, but I just wanted to sticky a reminder that
things are never as bad as they seem. 

No need to apologize. We are all here for the grand experiment .. and we
experience the very-known issues of democracy

[Rune]

Once the superDAC BitShares has been made manifest, AGS and PTS loses their purpose. The simple economics of metcalfes law states that it will never make any economic sense to make a seperate decentralized DAC that competes with the main one since each user in the new one will be much less valuable than if they simple were added to the main network. New DACs can be created as test runs, but their features should/will eventually be rolled into the relatively large network/userbase of BTS, once they have proven to be stable and profitable.

I agree there should be a one time "buyout" of PTS and AGS, but I don't think it should be done exactly at market evaluation. BTSX holders should be compensated for the fact that they had to suffer the "inflation shock" we've seen now, and should be allowed to buy PTS and AGS at a slightly discounted rate. In the end all shareholders will benefit massively from this consolidation.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Bytemaster cannot serve two masters (pre. and post Feb 28 snapshot AGS). He cannot betray post snapshot donors by spending all of his time on BTSX. But BTSX obviously needs his full attention....What to do?

We now find ourselves with a dilemma, seeded in the infamous “original mistake” which accidentally solidified the core distribution of his most brilliant idea 4 months too early, and only ¼ way through the main funding drive. Fortunately, we now have an crisis/opportunity to 'course correct' this inauspicious division once and for all. Let us remain vigilant and cool headed as we chart the most sane course, perhaps even putting to the test some of the trust we have gained from one another.

There seems to be two “hot button” issues at this time. The first has apparently found general consensus that PTS and AGS should be combined and made liquid, albeit how and when are still up for debate. The second, and by far the most volatile, seems to revolve around the idea that dilution of BTSX is 'absolutely' needed at this time to fund further development. I am unaware that anyone close to the dev. team has said this outright, or has given explanation as to why all of the development funds have already been spent, but my suspicion is that this rumor of 'absolute need' evolved from the original dilemma of bytemaster's desire to be fair with the AGS (only using Jan 1- Feb 28 for BTSX). If this assumption is true, then I postulate that pressure for dilution might be lessened temporarily by finding a way for bytemaster to justify spending the post Feb. 28th AGS funds on BTSX without dishonoring the social contract.

One option he proposed is to absorb PTS and AGS through a one time BTSX dilution of  20% (based on the theory of their current market caps of approx. $5mil., $5mil., and $50 mil.). BTSX could be re-branded simply “Bitshares”, and then officially recommended as the 'grand proto-DAC' for future social-contractual obligations. There is a fatal flaw in this idea as it stands, namely that it would betray the relative value proposition of AGS and PTS and heavily skew all future DAC allocations towards  pre Feb. 28th snapshot holders. I will explain how this works in the next paragraph. If you already figured this out, skip to the following paragraph.

Assuming 2 million shares existed for each AGS and PTS, a minimum consensus allocation (10% each) 'guarantees'  1/ 20millionth allocation per share. If BTSX is diluted 20% to absorb AGS and PTS, they now have 1/6th the value proposition they once had, assuming BTSX is not diluted any further and manages to remain at the same price per share. So now when BTSX is snapshotted, the PTS or AGS holder will now receive 1/ 120millionth of the new DAC (per absorbed unit). Furthermore, this skews the relative allocation towards the original pre. Feb 28th snapshot holders. While there has been 10's of millions in trading volume since BTSX release, over 1/3 of the genesis shares are still unclaimed, so pre. Feb 28th AGS and PTS holders would be (unfairly) entitled to at least 1/3rd of the total proposed proto-dac.

It would be fine to re brand BTSX to just “bitshares”, but this blockchain should not totally replace AGS and PTS in the proposed manner. There is no reason, however,  that post Feb. 28th AGS and PTS holders cannot still be brought into the fold with a one time 20% dilution. There might not even be huge opposition form the pre-Feb 28thers, because naturally the entire AGS list would be allocated shares in the dilution, and all pre- 28th would be allocated additional shares for the trouble of welcoming their brethren from across the divide. Most might even be sympathetic to the cause..... I most certainly am. If this solves the short to medium term of fund shortage, then we might be able to explore the dilution debate in an atmosphere of less urgency, which would surely improve our chances of making the right decision. And who knows, in this crazy market what a few months might bring (come on, marketing!)

Anyways, I do apologize for the breach of protocol  I probably shouldn't have started a new thread for this, but I just wanted to sticky a reminder that things are never as bad as they seem.