first of all, I appreciate BM's hard work and the whole team. i just have one question, the plan is unfiar and can it be changed.
the new plan is too good for pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS. and for those PTS holders and AGS donators after 2.28 are really unfair.
the most important thing is that the market has proved that, the allocation plan is unfair, the the price of pts has fallen down a lot(that menas the new plan is not good to PTS holders), the DNS price has fallen down too （that menas the new plan is not good for those people who bought AGS after 2.28, because pre-AGS holders have earned much from BTS and the new plan）
i know 3I have all coins, but that cannot convince the other people the plan is fair, because their proportions on these coins are different, maybe they would be more benefical by this allocation plan. but the market has already given the answer to the new plan.
i think the allocation plan must be changed. i know pre-2.28 AGS holder and those people who bought BTS would not agree with me, but most of the other people would agree with me. '
i hope BM can reply on me.
Thank you so much and all your hard work.
Bytemaster has thought very deeply about the many factors to be considered and he recognizes that there are many different ways of weighting what different people would consider fair.
He put on his different hats, one at a time, as a large stakeholder in each group and asked himself what would be the minimum reasonable deal he could live with (not be happy with) in each group.
He weighed things like market cap, liquidity, risk taken, future potential, likely overlapping membership in other categories, negotiations with each individual developers, an so on. (For example, AGSers in the first 60 days paid much more for their AGS than those in the last 140 days, but got huge BTSX value while the latter donators took a huge risk right at the time of highest doubts about whether we would ever succeed at anything but got really cheap AGS credits.) PTS holders had much more flexibility the whole time. And so on.
Then he took a deep breath and generated a mix that put every group above their minimums using his best judgment.
In his opinion, every group got a good deal even though every group might not be exactly the same depending on which set of metrics one might choose. By changing metrics you can change which group appears to have benefited most and it is not possible to generate a solution that comes out the same for every set of metrics.
So he used his best judgment based on his deep understanding of all issues and his desire to do right by everyone who has supported our efforts.
After the proposal he listened to hundreds of arguments from every point of view looking for any considerations that were so compelling that it would be worth putting the whole community through another round of bickering if he should change it. He only found one: the issue with people who bought into DNS at a high price just before his announcement. He used our supply of DNS to compensate them rather than perturb the fragile deal with any changes.
Finally, it is up to each developer to decide what mix of PTS and AGS to honor and with how much. And it is up to each holder to decide whether to be grateful or resentful without doing the oh-too-human weakness of envying the deal someone else got.
Since the results of this past week's innovations have yielded a hugely more competitive DAC that can only be hurt by more controversy about how to divide the spoils of victory, it is unlikely that BM will reopen the whole can of worms again.
We hope that everyone will look around them at the powerful shiny new starship they have boarded and resist arguing about whether someone else has a better seat. We are all going to get to the moons of Antares III at the same time.
Thanks for understanding. This was not easy.
Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger (Read 103796 times)
