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

[alphaBar]

Guys, I am starting to understand what you're saying, and let me tell you - it FEELS SO GOOD. But I just realized that you aren't doing enough consolidating. What we really need to do is give all three a completely EQUAL distribution:

1/3 BTSX
1/3 AGS
1/3 PTS

Forget about the social contract - this is the FAIREST solution because it is EQUAL. You guys decided to make AGS and PTS the same (because equal is fair), but I say DON'T STOP THERE! I know, I know, some of you may say that this is not fair because it changes the value proposition of BTSX. This is totally false! Just like AGS, the social contract is totally optional because we're not a currency, we're a company! Companies can do wutever LOL.

Anyways, today is about EQUALITY. AGS is now magically liquid, yay! Transfer of wealth you say? I say "we're a company, idiot!" To da moon!

[betax]

Another Option

Option A (or any already mentioned) +

Create a new asset made up AGS + PTS, this asset will used be to honour Third Party DACs.

Third Party DACS will have to honour this new asset with a minimum of 20%.

[Shentist]

a) we want it KISS in the future (keep it simple and stupid)

merge BTSX + PTS + AGS together

in my opinion it will be in favor of BTSX holders, because BTSX was always only created as an asset exchange and if bytemaster wanted he could move on to new projects. now BTSX will be the only sole entity with bytemasters focus.
AGS + PTS are invested in their assets, because they wanted to take a early risk for the chance of 10% of all DACs I3 will create or a 3rd party will create. with the merger they get diluted a lot, because BTSX was created from 50%/10% AGS/PTS allocation Feb. 28. All people after this snapshot will get only a % of this allocation. It is not AGS + PTS vx. BTSX but early Snapshot Feb. 28 against the rest.

[pendragon3]

There is another issue worth pondering that I don't think have been discussed yet.

BM's proposal that bases the allocation on PTS market cap relative to BTSX market cap may be a simple solution, but is it really fair to PTS and AGS? If BTSX and PTS both had equally deep and liquid markets, perhaps market cap would be a suitable basis for relative value. But in fact PTS is and has been a much less liquid market. In the world of finance, it's well-known that illiquid stocks trade at a discount, and rightfully so--they are harder to get in and out of, so they should earn a higher return (and trade at a discount to the fundamental value). How large is the illiquidity discount for PTS? 20%? 30%? More?

So, if one wishes to argue that market cap is a good basis for allocation because it reflects the market consensus about the relative value of PTS vs. BTSX, one also needs to factor in that the PTS market cap understates the true value of Protoshares. Ergo, PTS and AGS should be allocated an extra premium.

[amencon]

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

Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS.  it's not destroyed, only transferred.

You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with.  That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been.  So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%.  Thats what PTS looses.

ah, I see.  There is a bit of a difference but that is very hard to calculate.  It seems very theoretical.  You don't know if the value added (new DAC-like functinality/app) to the new whole (BTS) is worth more than the sum of the separate DACS.  Some of them may not have been successful on their own and would benefit from being part of BTS or possibly the reverse I suppose.

It's not easy to estimate the value that would have accrued to PTS/AGS from stakes in all future DACs. But it can't be ignored. Didn't Bytemaster himself predict a couple of weeks ago that the potential future trillion-dollar valuation of the industry wouldn't just reside in BTSX, but instead be spread out over about a dozen or so different DACs?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that 10% of the new BTS would be a raw deal for PTS and AGS holders. And BTSX holders may be gaining an unfairly large windfall because they will now have the ability to inherit a stake in all the future DACs, which was previously only available to investors in PTS and AGS.

Yes that was my motivation for my investment in PTS and AGS.

Though I suppose we should be happy we get something, even if it wasn't what we originally invested in.  Plenty of others in this space lose their investments to far worse.

Best case now we take our 6-10% and hope the debit card and the marketing secrets are real.  At this point I don't think the debate and decision over a couple percentage points will matter all that much.

[pendragon3]

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

Yes, future DACs (the functionality and/or actual separate DACs) will emerge from BTS.  it's not destroyed, only transferred.

You get more value in the form of BTSX but less from future snapshots which is why people invested in PTS/AGS to begin with.  That whole thing is flushed down to 17% or whatever of what it would have been.  So now PTS gets 17% of 20% instead of 20%.  Thats what PTS looses.

ah, I see.  There is a bit of a difference but that is very hard to calculate.  It seems very theoretical.  You don't know if the value added (new DAC-like functinality/app) to the new whole (BTS) is worth more than the sum of the separate DACS.  Some of them may not have been successful on their own and would benefit from being part of BTS or possibly the reverse I suppose.

It's not easy to estimate the value that would have accrued to PTS/AGS from stakes in all future DACs. But it can't be ignored. Didn't Bytemaster himself predict a couple of weeks ago that the potential future trillion-dollar valuation of the industry wouldn't just reside in BTSX, but instead be spread out over about a dozen or so different DACs?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that 10% of the new BTS would be a raw deal for PTS and AGS holders. And BTSX holders may be gaining an unfairly large windfall because they will now have the ability to inherit a stake in all the future DACs, which was previously only available to investors in PTS and AGS.

[Felix]

I cann't understand the reason why AGS/PTS holders have already acquired btsx shares and now will be allocated again by diluting btsx shares!!!

It's not diluting, it's a merger. BTSX is buying out AGS and PTS. I love it!

You as a BTSX holder would also receive dividends on all future DACs. Isn't it great?

In nature, it is a dilution! Btsx system is the key product for 3I. Even if btsx system doesn't merge AGS/PTS, it will have a good future too.

[bitmeat]

I cann't understand the reason why AGS/PTS holders have already acquired btsx shares and now will be allocated again by diluting btsx shares!!!

It's not diluting, it's a merger. BTSX is buying out AGS and PTS. I love it!

You as a BTSX holder would also receive dividends on all future DACs. Isn't it great?

[Felix]

I cann't understand the reason why AGS/PTS holders have already acquired btsx shares and now will be allocated again by diluting btsx shares!!!

[bitmeat]

I prefer option B, even though it hurts me.

In my mind this is not really a dilution!

Tho those who think it is, understand that even though you give up some of the BTSX, you now get 20% of all future DACs, that honor the social contract.

There are also a lot of late comers who thought funding AGS would give them BTSX, not realizing the deadline. This hurts adoption, and leaves a bitter taste for those folks who were "late to the party".

Think of it also as good marketing, since those late adopters, who also funded the development of the toolkit, will now praise the ecosystem.

[pariah99]

I've been poking around the forum looking for a proposed allocation from I3 but all I can find are hypothetical ones which look like they're just there to illustrate the point of the merger (i.e. 80/10/10 BTSX/PTS/AGS one).  I know that you guys are probably still formulating an equitable plan, but when you do can we have a stickied proposal from the management?  Also, how is I3 planning to have us "vote" for the change?  Is it going to be a single hardfork, or are we going to have different delegates who create different chains based on their preferred allocations?

[Tuck Fheman]

I own BTSX/PTS/AGS.

much confusion. very consolidate. so change.

I can't figure out which option would be better for me personally, much less which is fair for all (or at least a majority).

EDIT : But so far Option B sounds the best.

[Empirical1.1]

Wow! how things move fast around here.

I listened to the mumble session and have spent the last 6 hours reading. I hold only BTSX and got in about 2 months ago.

But I haven't really seen the X of BTSX materialize. There is no way to trade other cryptos with BTSX unless you use some OTHER exchange. So there's something quite different about the btsX than all other crypto exchanges available today. There's so much discussed and so many ideas I've practically forgotten about BTSX as an eXchange.

I'm generally in favor of BM's proposal. I do have a question about what I'll be invested in after the merger. When I bought BTSX I thought I was investing in the eXchange, which would become worth more as each new DAC was added. I viewed it similarly to how PTS investors view their share "dividends" accrued with each new DAC launched.

I'm not too sure that was an accurate perspective, but that was my viewpoint. I never felt I had an explicit understanding of how a new DAC would add to my BTSX value.  But I was confident in BM's vision and believed the time was right to get onboard. I've been listening to BM since April.

So what will change after the merger? Will I get any Music, Vote, DNS or XYZ DAC shares, or is my gain more through association like my original impression?

BTSX is an exchange in that it lets you hold the value of cryptos and real world assets in a decentralised way! Within the wallet you can trade BitBTC, BitUSD, BitCNY and BitGold soon many more will be added. Also it's still finalising development and has yet to be marketed. BTSX on its own is an exciting proposition.

What will change after the merger is that more new features will be added to BTSX from other DACs and it will change from BitSharesX to BitShares. It will become a SuperDAC that is the sole focus of key BitShares talent. The downside is that your current position will be diluted so if you owned 10% of BTSX after the merger you will probably own 8-8.5% of the new BitShares.

[roadscape]

I'm semi-jokingly resentful of the AGS crowd. I overcompensated by picking up PTS.
The only value I got out of it was the Music snapshot, and I donated on top of that.
It sounds like everyone with AGS has had solid returns already.

I feel as though there's a certain negativity towards newcomers.
It's understandable, you were here first.

But Dan's proposal will lead to more success for everyone and level the playing field.
There exists no easy way to slice this issue, some will necessarily lose.

But 3i has more skin in the game than any of us, right? Certainly they will be fair.

[arhag]

Personally I never found the need to get rid of AGS/PTS.  If they're hard to market, then don't market them.  Re-brand it all and make PTS/AGS like products of BItshares and make them an asset.

Keep Bitshares plan as it is otherwise.  Drop the X,  add democratic stake issuance.  I'm still quite happy.

The point of this merger is to not divide Dan and team's attention over many different DACs that like it or not will be competing with each other. If I3 is going to focus on one DAC (BTS, formally known as BTSX), then the value of all other DACs will plummet. In fact, we can already see this happening with fall in the price of DNS from the mere possibility of this proposal happening. If the value of all other current and future DACs plummet because of this, then AGS and PTS become worthless. So to be "fair" (whatever that means), the proposal is to at least compensate AGS/PTS holders. The value in having the team focus on a single DAC and driving all the growth to an increase in the value of a token that is diluted to pay for the growth is very large. It is much larger than a few percent adjustment here and there in the favor of BTSX or AGS/PTS.

And for the record: I am okay with bytemaster's original merger strategy. I don't hold PTS. I donated to the AGS campaign both pre-Feb 28 and post-Feb 28. I donated roughly equally amounts (in USD value) pre- and post- Feb 28. And I purchased about 20x more BTSX shortly after genesis compared to the genesis BTSX awarded via AGS.