Author Topic: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)  (Read 13877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2014, 04:44:13 pm »
PTS AGS with the biggest difference is that PTS can free trade business, while AGS can't; so exchange AGS ratio is relatively high, but now the PTS with the AGS as to deal with it, is not unfair to PTS? This is not to let AGS can become a deal? Is not with the original issuing AGS contrary to the original intention?

I still do not see how it is unfair as those who donated to AGS still did so with the knowledge that they were risking FAR more than PTS.  PTS holders who have no AGS will have a hard time understanding that the relative risk they had by holding PTS could be liquidated at any time during the most critical growth phases of the project (when risk was Highest)...AGS knew the risk and took it anyway fully expecting to never be made liquid.  So to me it comes down to loyalty (and if loyalty deserves higher rewards)...but that is just me and as you probably know by now I'm borderline crazy in my loyalties sometimes. 

P.S.  even if AGS are made liquid, I have no intention of liquidating them.  I want to see what an older, wiser Bytemaster has in store for me 15 years from now...

When I see comments like this I really lose faith in this forum... Let me explain it very simply for you:

Your "high risk" investment in AGS was based on a social contract that required you to be "locked in" to your investment perpetually. In exchange for this "high risk" investment, you received 6X, let me repeat - 6 times, more equity than PTS investors for every dollar you spent. As a result, you now own 6X more BTSX for every dollar you invested. Now you are proposing that we "gift" AGS holders the liquidity of PTS, violate the social contract, AND allow you to maintain your 6X equity in not only future DACS, but also BTSX! So you get to double dip into BTSX, you get liquidity, you keep your 6X equity, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and sadly at the expense of PTS holders when half of your friends liquidate (please don't argue this if you value your reputation).

Still don't see it?

So how much do you think your PTS and resulting BTSX stake was worth without AGS? AGS donators could just as well turn around and fling your argument right back at you. How much of the development was actually paid for with PTS? AGS could argue that PTS are essentially free-loaders, but I don't see how that will improve this discussion all that much.

Credibility is worthless on forums anyway, only arguments should count in this. I personally don't care much for people flaunting their so called reputation and credibility anyway and I hope that will never turn into the accepted measuring stick. Eventhough I'm proven wrong time and time again.

You're right Joey. By that logic let's just liquidate PTS to zero and give AGS everything. </s>

I feel like I am arguing with my high school ex-girlfriend here. No logic, no metrics, no data. Just "where would you be without me!" The market return was higher for AGS based on the increased risk of no liquidity. If you want to "gift" them liquidity, their equity should be adjusted downward to match PTS.

Offline D4vegee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2014, 06:04:16 pm »
I don't want a liquid AGS. That's why i don't hold anymore PTS. Can't AGS just remain part of the newer improved BTS with the same social consensus / future DAC honor rules? Surely this is not rocket science?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2014, 08:19:41 pm »
Great poll. The allocation poll will be interesting to see also. Personally, I don't care that much about the allocation. Win or lose a few BitUSDs' worth, I'm glad that this new merger will create a stronger, unified BitShares. Just bought some more BTSX.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2014, 08:22:51 pm »
I don't want a liquid AGS. That's why i don't hold anymore PTS. Can't AGS just remain part of the newer improved BTS with the same social consensus / future DAC honor rules? Surely this is not rocket science?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't know why people aren't talking more about this.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline Vizzini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vizzini
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2014, 09:19:37 pm »
Longtime lurker here. Had to weigh in: this makes BTS stronger. Merge it all, pls. Allocation is fair.
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline Brent.Allsop

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
    • Canonizer.com
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2014, 10:14:17 pm »
Fuzz,

You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.

These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way.  The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$.  Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?

And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what?  How do we scale that?  This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.

Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.

  • Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea.  But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
  • Does not scale:   There are only at about 100 people participating in this process.  We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process.  Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
  • Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears.  People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more.  If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more.  Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on.  When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent.  The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
  • People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest.  Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees.  The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp.  I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
  • Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built.  Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.

Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently.  Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work.  But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 10:17:01 pm by Brent.Allsop »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2014, 11:48:23 pm »
I'm re-posting this here so that it doesn't get lost in a thread before people can read it.

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: with a merger, assuming an 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% of VOTE:

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.

You did not address the issue of "gifting" liquidity to AGS which will introduce massive sell pressure on every other linked asset. I do agree in principle with what you said.  +5%

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2014, 01:00:48 am »
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.

The vesting will make some people very very angry.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #53 on: October 22, 2014, 01:03:17 am »
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.

The vesting will make some people very very angry.

Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #54 on: October 22, 2014, 01:05:11 am »
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.

The vesting will make some people very very angry.

Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"

it does not apply for BTSX

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #55 on: October 22, 2014, 01:44:21 am »
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.

The vesting will make some people very very angry.

Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"

it does not apply for BTSX

liondani - I am absolutely mad right now, because they announced the merger and liquidity I was like cool!

I converted a lot of BTSX into PTS. Right after that they announce the vesting, so PTS tanked.

Bravo! What a way to treat supporters.

Offline fuzzy

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2014, 01:50:37 am »
Fuzz,

You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.

These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way.  The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$.  Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?

And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what?  How do we scale that?  This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.

Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.

  • Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea.  But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
  • Does not scale:   There are only at about 100 people participating in this process.  We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process.  Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
  • Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears.  People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more.  If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more.  Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on.  When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent.  The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
  • People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest.  Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees.  The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp.  I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
  • Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built.  Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.

Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently.  Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work.  But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)

I do get what cannonizer can do Brent trust me. I am not an expert on its use, however, on how to effectively maximize its utility.  You want to start one?

Oh and as for alphabar...im too busy trying to help unite the community to deal with your angry posts.  I have and continue to sacrifice for this project...along with a great many others on this forum (who do even more). Please dont talk to us like we are greedy a-holes who do not care about the success of this project.  I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath and recognize the stakes...and im not talking to our pockets...
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline bytemaster

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2014, 02:00:21 am »
I voted FOR the merger, but am absolutely against the vesting period starting from 0%, this is madness. At least start it at 50%.

The vesting will make some people very very angry.

Agreed. It's like "Here's your money, but you cannot spend it. HAHA"

it does not apply for BTSX

liondani - I am absolutely mad right now, because they announced the merger and liquidity I was like cool!

I converted a lot of BTSX into PTS. Right after that they announce the vesting, so PTS tanked.

Bravo! What a way to treat supporters.

I am fairly sure that vesting was mentioned from the original proposal and nothing changed.
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 donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2014, 02:21:56 am »

I converted a lot of BTSX into PTS. Right after that they announce the vesting, so PTS tanked.

Bravo! What a way to treat supporters.

I still have some PTS. The allocation seems quite fair.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2014, 03:47:48 am »
Fuzz,

You obviously still do not get what Canonizer.com can do, otherwise you would have attempted to do this survey with a more modern tool like Canonizer.com.

These issues are the biggest problem facing the crypto currency movement, and we can't take over the world till we get them solved in a very amplify the wisdom of everyone way.  The expert opinion is that mining is bad, but the Bitcoin herd is still running towards mining like a bunch of lemmings about to jump off the cliff and become very poor, throwing away millions of $$$.  Why is it that this problem can't be solved, without some set of experts like The bytemaster and team having to invest huge amounts of effort and capital to get over the huge barrier of entry to create a viable competitor that is strong enough to be able to destroy mining and Bitcoin with it?

And, sure, the bytemaster is brilliant, and we are very agile, while we are small, so we may be able to kill mining (and bitcoin with it), but then what?  How do we scale that?  This dilution issue (or some other similar issue in the future) could kill bitshares, just like mining is about to kill Bitcoin by making it vulnerable to Bitshares like competition, or at best fracture the community.

Let me list just a few of the problems with attempting to quantitatively determine and build consensus in this way.

  • Not Quantitative: When The bytemaster makes proposals like he does to the forum in this way, if people spend way too much time, they may be able to determine how much consensus there is for or against the idea.  But how much time and effort, and how likely is someone to make a mistake and get it wrong, or read the crowd incorrectly?
  • Does not scale:   There are only at about 100 people participating in this process.  We need to be able to scale this to millions of people and more, in a way that amplifies everyone's wisdom, and motivates everyone to be very involved in the process.  Even with 100 people participating, nobody knows who is in what camp, how much and what they are willing to give up, what, exactly, would be required to get the various people in each apposing camp to get on board, and so on.
  • Destroys consensus: Doing things this way just destroys consensus, or at least that's the way it always appears.  People get the perception that there are hundreds of different points of view, and more.  If there are already 1000 posts, nobody will want to post another post as nobody can read 1000 posts, let alone one more.  Nobody can agree on even definitions, let alone what each "yes" vs "no" camp means, and so on.  When, in reality, there is always way more consensus than is apparent.  The important things is, we need to be able to measure and build consensus, quantitatively, from the bottom up.
  • People Loose Interests: If you do not have a constantly improving, easy to follow system, people will lose interest.  Each of the yet to be defined camps or positions, must be able to improve in description, and be stated very definitively and consisely, in a way that ensures everyone in the camp definitely agrees.  The camp descriptions must be able to change and improve, by anyone, in a wiki way, while insuring unanimous agreement by everyone in the camp.  I you can't do that in an efficient way, people will not have enough time to do due diligence, and just not participate.
  • Survey Not Dynamic: People must be able to propose more than just yes / no, and what the yes and no camps mean must be able to change, dynamically, as more consensus is built.  Even the top level question, or goal of the question must change, from the bottom up, in a wiki way, that insures everyone agrees with the change.

Modern systems like the one we are developing with Canonizer.com can amplify the wisdom of the crowd and solve all these problems, enabling the herd to change direction very rapidly and efficiently.  Sure, Canonizer.com is just a prototype, hard to use, and people need to get up the huge learning curve about how to communicate and build consensus, concisely and quantitatively, which takes some work.  But it can be done and more effort can be put towards developing such system enabling is to communicate concisely and quantitatively.

And the first Crypto Currency community to learn how to most effectively do this in a way that scales in agile, intelligent ways, will be the first one to rapidly take crypto currency to the next level (the next level being taking over all hierarchies and bureaucracies, and becoming the new rulers of the world)

I do get what cannonizer can do Brent trust me. I am not an expert on its use, however, on how to effectively maximize its utility.  You want to start one?

Oh and as for alphabar...im too busy trying to help unite the community to deal with your angry posts.  I have and continue to sacrifice for this project...along with a great many others on this forum (who do even more). Please dont talk to us like we are greedy a-holes who do not care about the success of this project.  I sincerely hope we can all take a deep breath and recognize the stakes...and im not talking to our pockets...

I'm not speaking to your intentions, just your actions. You may intend to "unite the community", but you are alienating a huge segment of an already small group of Bitshares stakeholders. When somebody brings up a valid and objective argument and you ignore it by saying "good enough" or "it's the best we can do", don't be surprised if there is a backlash. The allocation issue doesn't take effort. Nobody is criticizing you for not trying hard enough. It's about what is equitable and fair, and your proposal isn't even close.