Author Topic: Can someone explain why DNS is treated differently?  (Read 3468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

If the price doubled since launch you can't argue that the claimed stake "probably mostly hasn't changed hands".

People who held DNS but sold their PTS should not be treated as PTS holders.

People who bought DNS solely for DNS and who don't care about PTS also exist.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

For sure we will talk when I get to the office today.  I just want to say that I *thought* I was giving a better deal to DNS than what I *thought* Toast and I had discussed.   Obviously, I did not want to piss off Toast or DNS holders.


Well, you didnt.  You instead gave DNS only 50% of its market cap, plus a 2 year lockout. 
(I dont have any DNS.  I am just stating that it was not a fair allocation and DNS should get a bit more).


Almost all of the anger right now is from DNS buyers who lost ~50% of their value, plus face a lockout period.   A little bit of anger from PTS holders, mainly because PTS used to be liquid, and now will be in a lockout period, which makes no sense.

DNS stake should be slightly increased and DNS/PTS should both have no lockout, if you want this deal to be fair and not anger a significant minority of the community.

Everyone who claimed their DNS and held it in their own wallet has been given full market value (or more).   Everyone that didn't claim their DNS == PTS holders and AGS holders.

PTS will continue (we didn't take your PTS) you were just given a continuous share drop over the next 2 years which is what PTS was expecting anyway with new DACs being launched every couple of months.   Your liquidity wasn't removed.  You can sell your PTS if you like.

At some point we had to say.. "this is *our last DAC*" and when we said that PTS holders would have to make a choice. 
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 Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
If the price doubled since launch you can't argue that the claimed stake "probably mostly hasn't changed hands".

People who held DNS but sold their PTS should not be treated as PTS holders.

People who bought DNS solely for DNS and who don't care about PTS also exist.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

For sure we will talk when I get to the office today.  I just want to say that I *thought* I was giving a better deal to DNS than what I *thought* Toast and I had discussed.   Obviously, I did not want to piss off Toast or DNS holders.


Well, you didnt.  You instead gave DNS only 50% of its market cap, plus a 2 year lockout. 
(I dont have any DNS.  I am just stating that it was not a fair allocation and DNS should get a bit more).


Almost all of the anger right now is from DNS buyers who lost ~50% of their value, plus face a lockout period.   A little bit of anger from PTS holders, mainly because PTS used to be liquid, and now will be in a lockout period, which makes no sense.

DNS stake should be slightly increased and DNS/PTS should both have no lockout, if you want this deal to be fair and not anger a significant minority of the community.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline svk

@Bytemaster: I'm generally all for symmetry, but I still fail to see why DNS and VOTE allocations need to be 3% each. It would make far more sense to give 4+2% or 5+1% to take into account the fact that DNS is a live chain with some development progress that has been actively traded for a while, while VOTE at this stage is little more than an idea.

Most of the stakes in those two derive from PTS/AGS, so giving a higher stake to DNS would have the same effect for them, but it would also compensate people who bought DNS because they believed in it.

I can't quite recall the initial distribution of DNS though, maybe it's problematic?
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline russkroe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest. 

1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....

When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how...  I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly.    I could probably be bought out for less than 3%

When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.

So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned.  Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong.   That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things.  That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.

I think this is correct on all accounts.


 +5% +5%

I understand frustration because things do not appear (remember, this allocation is just a proposal) to be playing out the way investors initially thought. But here is my issue with the division this has caused.

1. Plenty of organizations pivot in order to make themselves more profitable in the long run. If you buy shares at an IPO, you are at the mercy of the majority of the other shareholders when they vote on the Board of Directors and how to move forward with company decisions. It is just one of the risks of playing the game.

2. We obviously all got on board cause we believe in Dan and his ability to make difficult decision. Anyone who has followed him closely should trust that he isn't talking about free markets, decentralization, etc. just to blow smoke up our asses then flip things to make a pretty penny for himself and a few larger investors. It is important to keep the bigger picture in mind. We are uniting for a movement that will provide for a crypto ecosystem that BTC was unable to provide. it will be a rocky start, but fighting about this small of a portion of the total pie will not help propel Bitshares to the game changer we know it can be.

It is important to make sure things are as "fair" as possible, but at a certain point we need to come together. As with any investment (equities, fixed income, land, or your personal career), you have to be wiling to endure some setbacks as long as you are monitoring progress and are still moving in the direction of the ultimate goal.

I fully trust Dan and am certain that he has our best interests in mind - if he didn't, he wouldn't risk disclosing Bitshares' next moves on an open forum and he would simply implement them without a care for public opinion. This project is bigger than any one of us and it will not advance if we are unwilling to come to terms with that.

Offline bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
ok, I take back that 'soley from the BTSX point of view'. It just happens to be the best deal for BTSX holders.
And I know how hard it is for people to put themselves into other peoples shoes.

But my arguments are/were:
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

Could you address this? thanks again!



Offline GaltReport

You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest. 

1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....

When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how...  I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly.    I could probably be bought out for less than 3%

When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.

So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned.  Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong.   That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things.  That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.

I think this is correct on all accounts.

Offline bytemaster

You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest. 

1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....

When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how...  I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly.    I could probably be bought out for less than 3%

When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.

So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned.  Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong.   That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things.  That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.

I would like to refine that by saying that $1M is the amount in dispute... assuming DNS price fall of 50% hurt those players... then that value was reallocated to PTS/AGS holders who sold DNS.  That means we are talking about $333,000 worth of value total that was lost to DNS holders in this deal.   

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 bytemaster

You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest. 

1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....

When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how...  I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly.    I could probably be bought out for less than 3%

When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.

So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned.  Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong.   That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things.  That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.   
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 d3adh3ad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile

Offline xman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
If the price doubled since launch you can't argue that the claimed stake "probably mostly hasn't changed hands".

People who held DNS but sold their PTS should not be treated as PTS holders.

People who bought DNS solely for DNS and who don't care about PTS also exist.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

+1

Offline bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

Interesting... do you have a counter-offer? Are you considering going off on your own and maintaining DNS as a stand-alone DAC?

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 bytemaster

If the price doubled since launch you can't argue that the claimed stake "probably mostly hasn't changed hands".

People who held DNS but sold their PTS should not be treated as PTS holders.

People who bought DNS solely for DNS and who don't care about PTS also exist.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...

For sure we will talk when I get to the office today.  I just want to say that I *thought* I was giving a better deal to DNS than what I *thought* Toast and I had discussed.   Obviously, I did not want to piss off Toast or DNS holders.
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 toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
If the price doubled since launch you can't argue that the claimed stake "probably mostly hasn't changed hands".

People who held DNS but sold their PTS should not be treated as PTS holders.

People who bought DNS solely for DNS and who don't care about PTS also exist.

There was clearly some miscommunication because I am super angry at the result...
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline bytemaster

Unclaimed DNS is quite high; somewhere around 3.6 billion last I checked.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

So it is 90% AGS/PTS... so we are really only talking about the last 10% who may have lost something?   Of those 10% that have "touched it" many of the claimed stake may just be voting and remain in the same hands...
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.