Author Topic: What does a fair allocation of Bitshares to BTSX/AGS/PTS holders look like?  (Read 12392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline svk

I'm for option B: give 1:1 to current BTSX holders, give 250k each to PTS/AGS.

Although I'll probably lose a little in the short term from it as I have far more invested in BTSX directly after the snapshot than I have in post snapshot AGS/PTS, it only seems fair that we (BTSX holders) should pay a premium to acquire the potential of AGS/PTS.

I do NOT like the idea of a "capital infusion" dilution of 200k shares to pay for marketing, I hadn't seen that mentioned anywhere before and I'm not at all comfortable with big lump sum dilutions to pay for anything. Like BM said on the Mumble, dilution should be used for steady payments through delegate pay, not big lump sums.
 
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward.  This % will be severely diluted.  If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. 


What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?

Yes.  Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs?  Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?

Outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.

Upcoming pipeline?   Lets please keep things in perspective.  The toolkit consists of Bitshares X which has not really hit a truly stable release.  How long was Bitcoin live before the first fork ?

Well I looked up something similar.. bitcoin - somewhere in 2009, litecoin - october 2011.  There were probably earlier forks, but you guys act like...  it is all done and wrapped up by I3 DACs.. Very bizarre to me. 

PTS is getting the shaft.  PTS has a commitment and paid funding to finish the toolkit.  I get toolkit will continue, but PTS is gone.  People left in BTSX do not appear to want any possible competitors. 

You guys are buying out PTS and replacing it with a snapshot that is openly anti-fork.

Or are we just making a genesis block written in stone and not transferring that to BTSX ?  THat is what BTSX should give up for paying market price and PTS/AGS giving up all future R&D PTS/AGS paid for to be directed in their interest. 

If PTS owners wanted BTSX, they would have liquidated and have BTSX.

yadda yadda...  just leave it at 10/10/80.   PTS is owed a premium base price.


« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:06:47 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
People with PTS were expecting a % of DACs going forward.  This % will be severely diluted.  If someone snapshots 20% in the future to BTSX, that is far different than 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. 


What remaining DACs are there? Just an abstract "any future DACs"?

Yes.  Was this not what Dan sold as his vision for donations... from the beginning? All these low barrier to entry DACs?  Has everyone done a 180 on that view now ?

Outside a core group of existing BitShares related talent Hackfisher, Toast, Eddie & Cob and perhaps Vote etc. there was really not much in the upcoming pipeline really. The one third party that did honour it LTS didn't do so well. Plus in a few months there'll be Ethereum competing for attention anyway. Personally I think this is a great deal for PTS and my AGS stake.

Upcoming pipeline?   Lets please keep things in perspective.  The toolkit consists of Bitshares X which has not really hit a truly stable release.  How long was Bitcoin live before the first fork ?

Well I looked up something similar.. bitcoin - somewhere in 2009, litecoin - october 2011.  There were probably earlier forks, but you guys act like...  it is all done and wrapped up by I3 DACs.. Very bizarre to me. 

PTS is getting the shaft.  PTS has a commitment and paid funding to finish the toolkit.  I get toolkit will continue, but PTS is gone.  People left in BTSX do not appear to want any possible competitors. 

You guys are buying out PTS and replacing it with a snapshot that is openly anti-fork.

Or are we just making a genesis block written in stone and not transferring that to BTSX ?  THat is what BTSX should give up for paying market price and PTS/AGS giving up all future R&D PTS/AGS paid for to be directed in their interest. 

If PTS owners wanted BTSX, they would have liquidated and have BTSX.

yadda yadda...  just leave it at 10/10/80.   PTS is owed a premium base price.
I agree completely, I'm actually not "happy" about 10/10/80, but sounds like BTSX only holders wouldn't be happy either, and they say when both sides of a negotiation come away unhappy then it was probably a fair deal.


Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
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.
also fine with me
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Is it safe to move funds on and off exchanges right now?  How about claiming unclaimed Genesis funds in BTSX, DNS, etc. right now?

And what will happen generally unclaimed funds (I think BTSX has about 1/3 unclaimed still)?  Technically they are still associated with a Bitcoin address and not a BTSX address? Or are they already on the network somehow?

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
16 % would feel quite a bit too little to me subjectively. The problem with the calculation is that something that is traded on coinmarketcap is always valued magnitudes higher than a donation fundraiser.

-> It might be more accurate to merge when DNS / Vote etc are actually trading and are on coinmarket cap. The result would be quite a bit different.

Personally I donated quite a bit to AGS after 2/28 expecting about the same amount of value from BTSX as from all other DACs combined. If post 2/28 PTS/AGS holders now only get 16/20 % that seems very little to me.

Has it been clarified yet what DACs are left and will have an own chain? Play, DNS, ME, else?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 10:08:18 am by delulo »

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline pendragon3

As I write this, the valuations on Coinmarketcap would seem to imply a naive marketcap-based allocation of about 10% to PTS, 10% to AGS, and 80% to BTSX. Here is a summary of the main reasons why this would be grossly unfair to PTS/AGS:

1. The proposed merger is in essence like an unsolicited takeover, to use the company metaphor, and PTS and AGS are not being given a chance to vote their approval. (I don't call it a "hostile" takeover because there is no management team for PTS/AGS in place to oppose it). Academic studies of large samples of corporate takeovers have shown that unsolicited takeovers typically require substantial premiums, say 40% or more, above the average pre-offer share price.

2. The coinmarketcap valuation of PTS likely understates the true fundamental value of Protoshares (and, by extension, Angelshares). This is because PTS is far less liquid than BTSX. Whether you look at dollar volume of trade or the order book on BTer, the conclusion is the same: PTS has a large built-in illiquidity discount relative to BTSX.

3. The proposed merger would basically discard the original social consensus (and perhaps try to forge a new one). The social consensus is an inherent property of PTS and AGS, and BTSX has certainly derived some value from "free riding" on it. None of what we have now would be possible without the cornerstone laid by PTS and AGS. Getting rid of the social consensus has a price that should also be factored in.

4. The new BTS entity being formed is not just BTSX 2.0. It is a much broader conglomerate that goes beyond banking and exchange. From this perspective, it is more like a merger of equals than a one-sided acquisition. Based on Bytemaster's recent views, we can expect that (1) a separately developed VOTE DAC would achieve a valuation equaling or exceeding BTSX, and (2) in the future, with a trillion dollar industry, the value would be spread evenly among a dozen or so different DACS rather than being concentrated in BTSX.
      So, PTS and AGS should be fully compensated for the substantial value that they are giving up. A simple example may help illustrate. Suppose that, without the merger, eventually BTSX = 100 and VOTE = 100. Suppose conservatively that all future DACS, large and small, would together be 200 (we can exclude DNS and MUSIC since the snapshots already occurred and we're focusing on future valuation). Now suppose that, with the merger, the combined BTS is 250 (there are additional synergies from eliminating competition between BTSX and VOTE). Finally, let's suppose chains inherit 10% (or 20% in the case of BTS).

Scenario A: a merger and a 80/10/10 allocation of BTS:

BTSX gets:  80%*250 + 80%*20%*200 = 232
PTS/AGS get: 20%*250 + 20%*20%*200 = 58


Scenario B: without a merger, VOTE is developed as competitor to BTSX, and PTS, AGS each get 30%:

BTSX gets: 100
PTS/AGS get:  60%*100 + 20%*200 = 100


The gains from the merger in Scenario A should be measured relative to values in the no-merger Scenario B, which is the default/fallback outcome (i.e., what would happen if the merger were not feasible). The relevant issue is, how much do parties gain or lose from choosing Scenario A versus Scenario B? Even if you adjust the numbers a bit, it's clear the 80/10/10 is woefully inadequate to compensate PTS and AGS for moving to Scenario A from Scenario B. And it becomes even more unfair the greater the assumed value of all future DACS.


So, the bottom line is, absolutely the merger should be done. It will yield great benefits in terms of branding, marketing, and incentives. But let's make sure we compensate PTS and AGS fairly and generously for the right to buy them out and eliminate them from the face of the earth.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
@pendragon3, well reasoned writeup.  A criticism of your argument is that VOTE doesn't have equal or more market cap than BTSX, it's not even launched. 

Also, if VOTE + BTSX are separate their market cap would consist of many of the same investors so while they may get a bigger piece of VOTE, their BTSX would be worth less due to the competition.  And they receive the benefit of future DACS being united rather than in competition.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
One practical solution that lets the market decide would be to launch all the DACs (incl. listing on one big exchange at least and a listing on coinmarketcap) that will be merged into BTSX with a landing page for each of the DACs that describes their value propositions and then do the merger based on those valuations.
ATM only insiders see/saw the value in PTS and AGS so the valuation is not super high. This would be different with the set up described above.

Edit: That might not work since there would be no measure for the price if it is known that it will be merged at a unknown percentage into BTSX. Am I thinking that wrong?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 05:10:05 pm by delulo »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile

The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.

I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%

Offline bytemaster


The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.

I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%

We are the single largest holder of PTS by far.  Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor.  So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.
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

The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.

I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%

We are the single largest holder of PTS by far.  Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor.  So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.

PTS and AGS held prior feb28 are not affected by any numbers. They always get the same stake.
PTS and AGS obtained after feb28 are massively devaluated. And this is direct breach of all the promises you and III made.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

The problem with these debates is that there is a larger interest in BTSX.  So of course they are for their side, which is BTSX.  Therefore we hear their side the most and people start thinking that is the consensus.

Then from there we vote on BTSX chain how to treat PTS. 

I'll go along with whatever, but it becomes obvious that those of us with an interest in PTS are not being represented that well in these discussions.

I really hate to agree with this guy, but whatever +5%

We are the single largest holder of PTS by far.  Giving a large stake to PTS and AGS would be massively in our favor.  So you can believe that PTS perspective was considered.

I was suggesting that the arguments on the forum were all very lopsided in a pro-BTSX manner.  Although my observation is that it has changed and plenty of people defended PTS.  I didn't really mean to say you guys were not giving PTS consideration.  I've ranted enough so I won't say much more.

I'm just mainly pissed about this whole flipping of direction of what Bitshares was supposed to be about.

We've traded complexity in marketing for complexity in the wallet.  So instead of having different brands, we now have a ton of different features on one blockchain inside a wallet. 

I speak for myself and only myself.