Author Topic: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)  (Read 14759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 520Bit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2014, 02:27:23 pm »
I love the super chain, let's go to it ASAP.
Accept BTC/XCP/MSC: 152oBitoBwHwxR5UpUQnsvWSFjYHkheDJk
PTS: PtPXhrP5jk8BPH5fFcPnBgNSrfmJ6DCFcW
PPC: PRT95iQEKUzJSb2XsPjLgdbyoSyKiDmyb9

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2014, 02:35:32 pm »
The key to this is going to be the pts/ags distribution.

Ags is going to say pts is liquid so they can realize gains after a snapshot by selling their pts.

Pts is going to say ags will now be made liquid so they in turn should have to pay.


I support the merger completely but I have  feeling this distribution is going to be like trying to unite north and south korea.... 

Offline davidpbrown

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2014, 02:37:35 pm »
Why does AGS need to change?.. Is that not just static and can remain as it is??
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline pendragon3

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2014, 02:40:10 pm »
Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates

Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx.. 
Can you explain further?

Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.

Keep in mind that most of the PTS donated to AGS are still in our war chest for everybody to see.  They are a key component of our development funds.  We also donated our own funds to AGS pre and post 2/18 and have since bought a large stake of BTSX.  That should provide comfort that we have skin in all three games.  :)

TBH, this is actually not very comforting. After all, it shows you are quite diversified/protected, so from that standpoint you'd be equally happy with almost any allocation, whether fair or not.

Offline JoeyD

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2014, 02:42:09 pm »
I'm having a real hard time believing this can be decided on the forums and centrally.

AGS-donators and PTS holders can sign messages with their keys and cast their votes weighted with their stake.
If DPOS offers a similar mechanic, the vote can be cast with actual stakes instead of random people from the internet having opinions on a forum.

Offline dlh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2014, 02:55:36 pm »
I don't personally opposed the plan, but I want to know if AGS is how to handle? It should not be treated the same way with PTS

Offline fuzzy

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2014, 03:04:12 pm »
I'm having a real hard time believing this can be decided on the forums and centrally.

AGS-donators and PTS holders can sign messages with their keys and cast their votes weighted with their stake.
If DPOS offers a similar mechanic, the vote can be cast with actual stakes instead of random people from the internet having opinions on a forum.

This thread (I am hopefully sending the reminder) is NOT to establish anything in stone...it is to get an estimate of who is for Invictus creating the super-dac and who is not. 

Now vote only shows that many holders of AGS and BTSX, they are all standing on their own perspective. I hope 3I can consider PTS holders feel, after all PTS is 3I earliest supporters and advocates

Though I am interested in your opinions here (I hold equal weight in both btsx and pts), I do not know that I agree with the premise that PTS is playing second fiddle to AGS or btsx.. 
Can you explain further?

Also...I am an AGS holder too...because I gave away the right to liquidity to fund the construction of the DACs we see today. That was a trade off and could be considered a fair trade by those who donated to AGS.

Keep in mind that most of the PTS donated to AGS are still in our war chest for everybody to see.  They are a key component of our development funds.  We also donated our own funds to AGS pre and post 2/18 and have since bought a large stake of BTSX.  That should provide comfort that we have skin in all three games.  :)

TBH, this is actually not very comforting. After all, it shows you are quite diversified/protected, so from that standpoint you'd be equally happy with almost any allocation, whether fair or not.

Although I (somewhat) agree, I think we need to look at the forest for the trees.  If, for instance, this move gives me a smaller stake in a FAR bigger pie...then it is fair.  If it ends up not "taking us to the moon", then it becomes "unfair"...but then again, I never got into cryptocurrency for a guarantee to be super wealthy lord of the land...I got into it to change the current paradigm in ways that are impossible to quantify through "money".
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

jaran

  • Guest
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2014, 03:22:23 pm »
When i first bought into the idea of bitshares I thought it was basically what is being described now - a super ecosystem of core technologies for developers to launch DACs.  Then i came to see how thats not what it really was and while I did not sale or anything, because I really like a lot of the ideas behind DACs, it was disappointing to see how all these core technologies were being used basically as separate alt coins that you had to individually invest in. 

So i am in favor of a Super Dac with core technologies included that other DACs can take advantage of.  If that's whats being described and I think it is...
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:29:11 pm by jaran »

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2014, 03:47:36 pm »
 +5%

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2014, 03:54:03 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?

Offline feedthemcake

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2014, 04:01:30 pm »
When i first bought into the idea of bitshares I thought it was basically what is being described now - a super ecosystem of core technologies for developers to launch DACs.  Then i came to see how thats not what it really was and while I did not sale or anything, because I really like a lot of the ideas behind DACs, it was disappointing to see how all these core technologies were being used basically as separate alt coins that you had to individually invest in. 

So i am in favor of a Super Dac with core technologies included that other DACs can take advantage of.  If that's whats being described and I think it is...

I think I had a similar idea as well when I first invested in AGS.
I felt as if I was donating a percentage of my holdings in BTC to help fund the future of crypto and a new experiment that may fail.
I felt better investing into AGS than I ever felt basically donating to some scams I've lost money on because of no due diligence, and after months, 3/4ths of a year of reading bytemaster, stan, toast, etc.etc.etc.'s writings, I am so confident in this system, the community, and those driving the vehicle, I am happy to have donated and received what I have already have.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 04:05:12 pm by feedthemcake »

Offline pendragon3

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2014, 04:22:54 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.

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2014, 04:24:21 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?

Adapt or die, good sir!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2014, 04:26:17 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?

I think Alphabar is right.  The amusing thing is that AGS holders may be very happy with the risk they took due to the results....now we have to give back in order to progress.  Adhering as closely as possible to the social consensus is very important.  Let's not forget, it needs to be preserved for future DACs and third party allocations to all BTS holders.  In many ways it is the social consensus that binds us together and enables changes to be negotiated.

Offline JoeyD

Re: IMPORTANT: BTS Merger (Poll)
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2014, 04:28:39 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.