Author Topic: Non-Dillutable BTSX  (Read 6879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.

One of the proposals was to proportionally offer newly issues shares to ALL of the shareholders at feed price BEFORE they are offered to anyone else. In this all shares are identical. And there is no difference between former AGS/PTS and BTSX => everything is equal BTS.
Makes sense to me.  As long as we are going with a single DAC system there doesn't seem to be any point to keeping PTS and AGS around, might as well roll it all into a single system.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.

One of the proposals was to proportionally offer newly issues shares to ALL of the shareholders at feed price BEFORE they are offered to anyone else. In this all shares are identical. And there is no difference between former AGS/PTS and BTSX => everything is equal BTS.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for.
As much as I hate the idea of dilution and even though I do hold some PTS and AGS, I agree that all shares, once merged, should be treated equally.

Having 2 "classes" of tokens seems like a horrible mess, the point of all of this is to simplify and condense right?  After all the turmoil let's at least hit that mark haha.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Yeah, we would all want the non-dilutable ones, because we all would want to have other people pay for the capital infusion but not us.


To be fair, everyone needs to be equal.  1 share is 1 share.  Everyone equally pays for dilution, if it is voted for. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

If the value goes up but it can also go down.
It's not guaranteed to go up so there is risk.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

I'm not missing that point, i understand what you want and why you want it. Development is obviously essential but this is just money printing. Adding the value of one thing to another is great (facebook buys oculus rift or PTS + AGS = BTS) but just saying we are issuing x shares for development is not specific enough. All that will happen is shares value will be diluted.

As im typing this i think i see a solution. If a delegate were to ask for a specific sum to complete a specific development then it should work. It would work because in this case the market knows exactly what it is getting and at what price. Then once consensus has been reached and the funds issued the market can decide if it agrees with consensus (and adjust price) and again the market can readjust its opinion/price once the development has been completed and is adding value.

The delegate then earns a reputation based on what they propose and what they deliver.

For this to work I think you would not only have to hard code a % inflation but also hard code a maximum single award. Maybe the maximum award could be increased as reputation (number of completed projects) increases.
If dilution becomes a done deal then I like your line of thinking with this.  I think it's important to put and many checks and balances in the code with maybe some hard limits.

Increasing hard limits based on increased reputation of delegate based on successful past dilution rounds also is a very interesting idea, not sure how difficult it would be from a technical standpoint though.  Not to mention how do you get stakeholders to vote on results of funding rounds?  Currently they can barely be bothered to vote out non-performing delegates as far as price feeds and other metrics, and those are irrefutable hard numbers that couldn't be easier to read at bitsharesblocks.com.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

I'm not missing that point, i understand what you want and why you want it. Development is obviously essential but this is just money printing. Adding the value of one thing to another is great (facebook buys oculus rift or PTS + AGS = BTS) but just saying we are issuing x shares for development is not specific enough. All that will happen is shares value will be diluted.

As im typing this i think i see a solution. If a delegate were to ask for a specific sum to complete a specific development then it should work. It would work because in this case the market knows exactly what it is getting and at what price. Then once consensus has been reached and the funds issued the market can decide if it agrees with consensus (and adjust price) and again the market can readjust its opinion/price once the development has been completed and is adding value.

The delegate then earns a reputation based on what they propose and what they deliver.

For this to work I think you would not only have to hard code a % inflation but also hard code a maximum single award. Maybe the maximum award could be increased as reputation (number of completed projects) increases.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?

That doesn't do anything other than a stock split... the purpose is "value transfer" from "everyone" to those providing capital infusion.

There is no stock split. Newly issued shares not claimed by current shareholders still go to those providing capital infusion. "Claimed" shares provide capital.

Update:
My idea better defined:
Business delegate defines 1% dilution (issues new shares).
Each week these shares are offered in internal market proportionally to current shareholders at feed price.
In the end of the week business delegate takes unclaimed shares and all bitUSD collected by selling the shares.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 02:56:53 pm by emski »

Offline bytemaster

I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?

That doesn't do anything other than a stock split... the purpose is "value transfer" from "everyone" to those providing capital infusion. 
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 emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.

What is wrong in offering all newly issued shares proportionally to shareholders at feed price ?

Offline bytemaster

I think that you are missing the point that the ability to raise capital is limited by the market.  Anything anyone does to vote in large spending that is not productive will impact share price.   This in turn will hurt devs more than help.   

Trust has value.
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 stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.

The problem is ensuring the gain and pain are shared by the same people. I have invested time and money in i3's ideas and you seem sound people but we are interested in a trust less system. If i3 has enough voting power to decide which delegates are in and which are out, and could then vote for delegates which approve a big development fund for i3 then we do not have a trust less system.

Offline jamesc

I trust that buy backs will be on the table too.

I wonder if dilution could be done at a rate and interval at or below the amount of fees one would pay to trade out before it occurs.  This would be fair to holder s that will be active later in the game.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.
Infusions are done when enough shareholders are talked into believing there will be more gain than pain.

Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Guys I realize the idea of dilution is kinda scary at first sight, but once you think it through and approach it from the right context, which is the COMPANY, then it makes perfect sense.

Imagine 2 facebooks competing for world social media domination. One of them can issue shares to acquire other startups such as Whatsapp and Oculus, and also issue shares to VC companies that help them kickstart growth. The other has a fixed amount of shares because shareholders dont want to be diluted.

Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? Would you even consider investing in a facebook that could not issue new shares in situations where it would be beneficial? Taking over world finance isn't that much different than taking over world social media, because of the massive network effect involved. Share issuance is an absolute must in the competition we are about to see ramp up, and we are the first DAC that will actually manage to implement it. We will not even have a real competitior until a different blockchains realizes that share issuance is basically a requirement to be competitive.

The way I look at it, if the value of each of my shares is going up due to an infusion of new capital/talent/customers/whatever, then what do I care if there are a few more of those valuable shares?  The new shares represent the new value received plus a bunch more to share with current shareholders making their shares more valuable too.

Infusions are only done when their is more gain than pain.
Infusions are only done when shareholders believe there is more gain than pain.