Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 41870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #180 on: October 22, 2014, 02:16:22 am »
I'm just going to sit in BTSX now, and not mess with it.  BTSX is safe. :)

 +5%


Offline Riverhead

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #181 on: October 22, 2014, 02:33:18 am »
Still unsure if it's 3% of 500M bts or 2.5B bts.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

3% of 2.5B bts.

(The other way, DNS would need to drop by more than 80% more which is clearly wrong).

As it happens it doesn't make that much difference if you sold on the 3% of 500M assumption unless I've slipped a decimal. Let's say you had 1M DNS and sold near the bottom of the crash at 142sat.

2.5B @ 3% = 75M BTS.

A 1M DNS stake will then net you 18750 BTS (1M/4bn*75M)

Sell 1M DNS @ 142 sat = 1.42 BTC which nets you about 21350 BTSX @ 6650 sat.  80% of 21350 BTSX is 17082 BTS

A difference of about 9%.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 02:35:20 am by Riverhead »

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #182 on: October 22, 2014, 02:38:13 am »


You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
Oh really?  The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence?  A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm.  BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse?  Please tell me you aren't this naive.

It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much.  Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.

Quote from: bytemaster
...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin.  It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained.....  the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....

The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other...  there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).   

The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.

The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...

I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.

I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen.  Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run.  I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.

It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team).  Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.

Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.

This will be a great post to come back and laugh at someday.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034
 8)

Yes.  You did just watch us evolve all this in dynamic real time.
It may be.  You guys can roll with the punches, I'll give you that.

Offline bobohuy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #183 on: October 22, 2014, 02:57:29 am »
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.

Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #184 on: October 22, 2014, 03:05:23 am »
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.

Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??

I think vesting should not apply to PTS or DNS since they were already liquid.

Vesting for VOTE and AGS is fine because they were not already liquid.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #185 on: October 22, 2014, 03:12:18 am »
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.

Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??

I think vesting should not apply to PTS or DNS since they were already liquid.

Vesting for VOTE and AGS is fine because they were not already liquid.

I think the point has been made that although they were "liquid", the market was so thin that selling just a small amount drove the price down significantly.

FRom that viewpoint, they were not very liquid.

(I am a PTS and AGS holder, and bought DNS beyond my genesis allocation.)

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #186 on: October 22, 2014, 03:23:36 am »
I calculate the value of DNS to be about 120 satoshis. 


Somehow I managed to buy 3.4 million DNS at 150, realize that I had screwed up my math the first time, and then sell them again higher than I bought and make a $100 profit.   (Its a good thing my 3.4M buy sparked a rally apparently, lol!  I sold the hell out of it again during the rally to correct my mistake).


Of course, I might be doing my math wrong on the 120 figure and the current price might be more accurate.

This is all just way too confusing.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Riverhead

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #187 on: October 22, 2014, 03:27:10 am »
Since 3% of 2.5B is 75M BTS and there are 4bn DNS in play the correct price is 1.88% of BTSX.

Currently that is about 123sat so your math seems spot on to me.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 03:30:03 am by Riverhead »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #188 on: October 22, 2014, 03:28:31 am »
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:

Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session.  As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".

Here's a sample:  True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity.  It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price.  Not even close.  So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share. 

Another example:  A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share.  But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value.  Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

:)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline 天籁

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #189 on: October 22, 2014, 03:34:59 am »
 +5%

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #190 on: October 22, 2014, 03:38:05 am »
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:

Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session.  As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".

Here's a sample:  True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity.  It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price.  Not even close.  So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share. 

Another example:  A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share.  But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value.  Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

:)

At the very least, I think DNS an PTS shouldn't be subject to lockout.

(I am 100% BTSX now, none of the others, so it doesnt matter to me, I'm just trying to get everyone a fair deal).
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Riverhead

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #191 on: October 22, 2014, 03:41:57 am »

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

 :)

The valuation that DNS was trading at 3 x TMV may be accurate but I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the merger. There are 5bn DNS shares of which 3.6Bn are unclaimed. Does unclaimed mean no vote?

I'm not so much concerned about the efficacy of this merger but of the sovereignty of DACs in general. How big does a DAC need to be before it isn't subject to the consensus of a few developers? While BM, Stan, Toast, et al are good actors that may not always be the case.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #192 on: October 22, 2014, 03:57:53 am »

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

 :)

The valuation that DNS was trading at 3 x TMV may be accurate but I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the merger. There are 5bn DNS shares of which 3.6Bn are unclaimed. Does unclaimed mean no vote?

I'm not so much concerned about the efficacy of this merger but of the sovereignty of DACs in general. How big does a DAC need to be before it isn't subject to the consensus of a few developers? While BM, Stan, Toast, et al are good actors that may not always be the case.

It's more about stability than size, I think.  This whole discussion is about what network these particular devs will be working on and supporting.  Anyone who wanted to could continue operating the existing networks using the existing rules and ignore what the devs are doing, but I think the devs have enough community support that their branch will thrive and the others will die.  If the devs were not good actors, they wouldn't have that support.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #193 on: October 22, 2014, 04:04:59 am »
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:

Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session.  As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".

Here's a sample:  True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity.  It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price.  Not even close.  So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share. 

Another example:  A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share.  But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value.  Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

:)

At the very least, I think DNS an PTS shouldn't be subject to lockout.

(I am 100% BTSX now, none of the others, so it doesnt matter to me, I'm just trying to get everyone a fair deal).

Only in Bizarro World does it make sense to gift liquidity to an IL-liquid asset with no discount, and in the same stroke of genius make the already punished investors of PTS IL-liquid. Totally rational, right guys... right?

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #194 on: October 22, 2014, 04:13:07 am »
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.

This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Also those vesting rules are terrible, it should just be a simple continuous drip to each balance which keeps vesting if you withdraw partially

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


It took me a while to get this quotes in order [thanks bitshrestalk.org]

I do not know if I have shared that I am a BIG fan of toast.... I do not know if I ever did that, other than declaring one of his post 'The funniest thing ever posted on this forum'.

But I am, a great fan of his!

« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 04:24:41 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.