What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?

[roadscape]

THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned.  It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition.  How do you even put that into the equation ?  You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.

I thought the idea was to transfer the remaining value of PTS/AGS into BTS.. not destroy value

[mf-tzo]

What you are missing though is that people gave up all their liquidity to AGS with the expectation that they will recover from many other DACs to come. When BTSX was launched at $20 mil market cap it was a no brainer for someone with liquidity to buy BTSX where others couldn't.

In any case I see your points, I gave my points that AGS shouldn't be treated as PTS and receive a premium for their loss of liquidity.My long term interests are in BTSX anyway and I am pretty confident that the most fair decision will be reached eventually. 

[gamey]

THere is a big question here about the value that PTS holders give up when the whole PTS/AGS system is abandoned.  It is value that is being destroyed by the acquisition.  How do you even put that into the equation ?  You guys can just take a BTSX vote, but that isn't the same as a PTS vote.

[Empirical1.1]

10/10/80 is slightly more generous than it looks like Bytemaster may have been discussing, which was in the 16-18% range for PTS+AGS (+DNS?).   (That is, his original proposal seems to be more like my proposal A?)

If the PTS/AGS hholders end up getting 10/10/80, plus MUSIC shares that we BTSX holders didnt get, then you came out ahead. 

if the PTS holders get just under that, console yourselves with the fact that you also got MUSIC and we (BTSX buyers) didnt.

Yeah A is what I think will work best. I have a similar % AGS so I won't be too affected regardless.

But I think going beyond A is negative for BTSX & BTSX is the biggest CAP.

Also many BTSX shareholders won't have any AGS or PTS whereas PTS & AGS shareholders are almost guaranteed to already have a position in BTSX.

[gamey]

All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs.  For example, DNS and MUSIC.

I believe this assumes that the same people still own PTS as the ones then.

People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC.  If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS. 

That is not fair.  The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.


My proposals from the first post are roughly fair.  The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS.  Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders.  A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap.  The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.

And which numbers from what ranges did you decide on were "fair" to calculate this? 

I am not even sure if DNS will continue or die. 

edit-
Actually I just did divide it out..  OH well, there is definitely a premium there at 10/10/80.  Although I think one can make up a lot of arguments in the other direction why PTS/AGS deserve more. 

[Ander]

10/10/80 is slightly more generous than it looks like Bytemaster may have been discussing, which was in the 16-18% range for PTS+AGS (+DNS?).   (That is, his original proposal seems to be more like my proposal A?)

If the PTS/AGS hholders end up getting 10/10/80, plus MUSIC shares that we BTSX holders didnt get, then you came out ahead. 

if the PTS holders get just under that, console yourselves with the fact that you also got MUSIC and we (BTSX buyers) didnt.

[GaltReport]

Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots. 

All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs.  For example, DNS and MUSIC.


People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC.  If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS. 

That is not fair.  The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.


My proposals from the first post are roughly fair.  The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS.  Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders.  A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap.  The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.

Okay, now I agree with you!

[roadscape]

10/10/80 as simple and straightforward.  It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.

 

[Ander]

Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots. 

All of the value that PTS had shaved off during snapshots is made up with the fact that they GOT SHARES of DACs.  For example, DNS and MUSIC.


People who just bought BTSX did NOT get MUSIC.  If you just say "PTS should be valued more highly", then you basically give the person who bought PTS both new BTS AND MUSIC, while giving the person who bought BTSX only the BTS. 

That is not fair.  The PTS/AGS people need to get slightly lower amounts of BTS in order to account for the fact that they got other shares in the meantime.


My proposals from the first post are roughly fair.  The 10/10/80 split is the most that should be given to PTS/AGS.  Actually it is kindof unfair in their favor, over the BTSX holders.  A 9/9/82 or 8/8/84 split is actually a lot fairer, based on market cap.  The DNS and MUSIC shares that the PTS holders have makes up for the slightly lower allocation.

[GaltReport]

I was happy with 10/10/80.

The problem with this averaging out stuff is that one can make the argument for PTS.  Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots.  Who really knows?  We can get into nested arguments all biased on what we want.

Try to correlate what the value of BTSX was pre-scare and do that with PTS.  Assume efficient markets.  Then chop it up like that.

or

10/10/80 as simple and straightforward.  It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.

sounds fine with me.

[Ander]

pre - 28th snapshot 0% on new BTS obviously

after 28th snapshot 30% / 10% / 60%  AGS / PTS / BTSX.

The reason I believe in this allocation is because one should take into account the opportunity cost from the lack of liquidity to AGS and one shouldn't take into account the high valuation of BTSX @ $75 mil and the low of PTS @ 5 mil. AGS valuation should be much more than $5 mil imho...

This is kindof ridiculous.
You are basically stealing 10 million dollars from people who bought BTSX, and who bought AGS before Feb 28, and giving it to people who bought AGS after Feb 28.  (Probably because you bought AGS after Feb 28).


Also, you are misrepresenting the proposal as giving a high value of $75M to BTSX, which it does NOT, it uses a low, recent value of $50M for BTSX.



We cannot give allocations that are significantly different than current market caps, because they are very unfair to some holders. 

[gamey]

I was happy with 10/10/80.

The problem with this averaging out stuff is that one can make the argument for PTS.  Then people will say but no, PTS obviously had value shaved off during snapshots and future value leading up to snapshots.  Who really knows?  We can get into nested arguments all biased on what we want.

Try to correlate what the value of BTSX was pre-scare and do that with PTS.  Assume efficient markets.  Then chop it up like that.

or

10/10/80 as simple and straightforward.  It will save a lot of bickering and people will move on.

[GaltReport]

It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.

Obviously...And this will continue to happen until BM comes with a final proposal and seals the deal in what he thinks is the best way as usual..

True!

[mf-tzo]

It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.

Obviously...And this will continue to happen until BM comes with a final proposal and seals the deal in what he thinks is the best way as usual..

[GaltReport]

It's amazing how far people are willing to spin things based on their own personal investment.