Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 41871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shuiwuhun

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #270 on: October 23, 2014, 03:09:28 am »
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS

2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc. 

80% BTSX

*NOTE* BTSX will remain liquid...just renamed to BTS.


Rationale:

There is no way to possibly estimate the relative value of all systems and each of us has a different estimate on the viability of each project and their respective growth curves.  In light of so many variables I wanted to go with a simple solution.   Market caps are not available for VOTE or AGS and BTSX/PTS price has been so volatile that the market doesn't have an honest valuation.

So I hope this proposal gets it "close enough" the advantages we get by combining out weigh any estimation errors.

What does each party get out of the deal?

PTS:
  1) No more dilution for mining for an instant gain of ~20% over 2 years
  2) A stake in all PAST DAC ideas as well as future... this compensates for getting 3% less than the 10% min of all DACs
  3) A vastly higher chance of success for a comparatively lower percent of ownership.

AGS
   1) Gradual Liquidity
   2) Otherwise the same as PTS

VOTE:
   1) Support of the main development team and better liquidity

DNS: network effect of more general user base brought in by VOTE

BTSX
   1) No competition for BitUSD
   2) Combined network effect
   3) Marketing support from Adam / VOTE
   4) Long term funding and support plan
   5) Dilution at a slower rate than Bitcoin

This said we are working with Eddie and Cob to use BTS as the backend of their music service and I am going to recommend any future merger with them be funded via electing Eddie and Cob as delegates to buy out NOTE holders from their fund raiser over time.   

We are going to lower asset creation fees for user issued assets.
BTSX will be renamed to BTS
Snapshot for PTS / AGS will be Nov 5th...

Merger to be complete by end of November.

We seem to have over 83% support from forum members with 130 votes cast and huge support from the marketing team, the development team, and just about everyone.

We will be creating a DevShares chain that will have all experimental updates and have regular release schedules with new "hard fork" features once every 3 months and eventually every 6 months.   Details on the DevShares are still unclear.   DevShares will hard fork frequently and not be suitable for accumulation of capital.. it may have down time, be hacked, etc... but we will maintain it as a testing ground for all features and for 3rd party developers.   Unlike Bitcoin Testnet, DevShares are designed to have economic value of their own and the chain will not "reset ownership".   It will therefore also support BitUSD.. but far less liquid.

Future dilution will have a hard coded limit of 10% per year and will be allocated to delegates that campaign and get approval for their pay.  This 10% limit may be raised via a hard fork with shareholder approval.     Our new "social consensus" will be that "majority shareholders rule" and everything else is subject to change.   

Nothing is perfect, I am sure we will lose some people as a result of this change.  But my goal is that we can have the funding and flexibility to take on the mainstream with our product offerings of BitUSD / etc. 

This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.  The market needs certainty and I hope to get it settled ASAP.

You are politician!

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #271 on: October 23, 2014, 03:15:51 am »
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.
I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).

He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.

While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself  and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.

But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.

Cheers.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #272 on: October 23, 2014, 03:20:56 am »
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.






« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 03:38:14 am by Stan »
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 donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #273 on: October 23, 2014, 03:35:16 am »
You only forgot the "before" picture.



Offline Anytime

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #274 on: October 23, 2014, 04:48:28 am »
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.


i understand it is hard, too complicated, and no one could make a perfect solution.so i think you and your whole team and Bm are good.  and as an individual investor, i have nothing to do but listen to you guys.  i have nothing to do, but to accept the plan. if i leave now, the coin price has already falledn down greatly, it is not a good timing.

i think the whole team did your best, and you guys should not be blamed, but this plan indeed is not a very good one, it sucks, and the market has proved my point. PTS holders also lose a lot of money, including long-term DNS holders, but they cannot get any compensations?????????? dissapointed!  i have nothing to say, because i have nothing which i can do about. 

hope things will get better.  i still think you are good now. at least, you guys are really honest and sincere. really love your attitude of talking about everyting with the stupid investors like me.

Thank you guys, hope everything will be fine in the next several years.


Offline hpenvy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #275 on: October 23, 2014, 04:54:41 am »
bitUSD: I'll form the head

 +5% Stan, ready to see it come together.
=============
btsx address: hpenvy
Tips appreciated for good work

Offline Anytime

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #276 on: October 23, 2014, 04:59:04 am »
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.
I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).

He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.

While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself  and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.

But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.

Cheers.

English is not my mother tongue, so sometims i might miss a lot of information and i may not express myself perfectly. and i want to say thanks, but how do you respond to the part, when the suggested plan came out, in the market, the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased.  that means the people in the market thinks that the new plan is good for BTS holders, bad for DNS and PTS . That means the suggested allocation plan is unfair, right?

BM, Stan, the same questions for you guys~

my answer is that it has proved the allocation plan is unfair to PTS and DNS holders. now you guys decide to compensate for DNS speculators but not all the holders, i think now it is unfair for PTS holders and DNS long-term holders.

thanks~
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 05:01:03 am by Anytime »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #277 on: October 23, 2014, 06:49:57 am »
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.
I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).

He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.

While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself  and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.

But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.

Cheers.

English is not my mother tongue, so sometims i might miss a lot of information and i may not express myself perfectly. and i want to say thanks, but how do you respond to the part, when the suggested plan came out, in the market, the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased.  that means the people in the market thinks that the new plan is good for BTS holders, bad for DNS and PTS . That means the suggested allocation plan is unfair, right?

BM, Stan, the same questions for you guys~

my answer is that it has proved the allocation plan is unfair to PTS and DNS holders. now you guys decide to compensate for DNS speculators but not all the holders, i think now it is unfair for PTS holders and DNS long-term holders.

thanks~

English is not my mother tongue,
Same here...if you have not understand that already.  :)

the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased
I do not know how to put this mildly... but both  PTS and DNS  were overvalued [and still are btw] grossly...

[disclosure] one man's opinion only and definitely not an investing advise.

[edit] n added to the a, to make it a [an]... other mistakes remain unnoticed as of now.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 06:52:03 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline onceuponatime

Re: can BM rely on me about the question about the new allocation plan
« Reply #278 on: October 23, 2014, 07:31:14 am »
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.
I will try instead of BM (as he has done it about 30 times already).

He tried an impossible task and he failed - the task being to make all parties involved get more new shares that they logically deserve.

While doing so he had to come up with money to compensate all of those wanting more! He decided that to do so he will be unfairly distributing to himself  and I3.
So the chances are if you have a position very similar to his... you will end up with slight initial disadvantage.

But rest assured, He and I, firmly believe that in the medium and long run we will end up gaining more then the few % points we lost from this 'unsatisfying enough our greed' distribution.

Cheers.

English is not my mother tongue, so sometims i might miss a lot of information and i may not express myself perfectly. and i want to say thanks, but how do you respond to the part, when the suggested plan came out, in the market, the price of BTS increased and the price of PTS and DNS still decreased.  that means the people in the market thinks that the new plan is good for BTS holders, bad for DNS and PTS . That means the suggested allocation plan is unfair, right?

BM, Stan, the same questions for you guys~

my answer is that it has proved the allocation plan is unfair to PTS and DNS holders. now you guys decide to compensate for DNS speculators but not all the holders, i think now it is unfair for PTS holders and DNS long-term holders.

thanks~

There are prizes for the best poems (one Chinese, one English) to show your hurt feeling about your PTS situation. Perhaps you could win some of your losses back, or at least have some creative fun:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10413.0


Offline JoeyD

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #279 on: October 23, 2014, 10:50:14 am »
And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D

This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.

First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity.  That's why they bought AGS.  It was a long term investment to start with.  Otherwise they could have bought PTS.  I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity.  It's more of a liability now.  They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc. AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.

Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid.  Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid.  Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future.  With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.

Wow, what an absurd comment. AGS was never "intended to end up effectively liquid." The fact that you can sell your stake in future DACs does not suddenly make AGS liquid. Nice way to contort reality to fit your objective. AGS was always "locked in" and this is exactly why AGS investors received 6X equity for each dollar they invested. PTS investors paid a 6X premium for their liquidity. Now we are going to shoulder the cost for AGS? Nice bait and switch.
Since we're talking about absurd.

Would you mind giving the sources of your stated facts? Your facts differ quite a bit from how AGS was presented to me. Where did you get the idea that AGS was never to become liquid? Discussions on how to do so date from before I joined the forums in February / March, I only recall that there were technical issues and riscs in doing so, which I3-team-members were not going to address. Afterwards the topic of making ags-liquid has been a recurring one ever since. Not that strange considering we are trying to build a separate selfsustaining entity from bitcoin after all. AGS being illiquid was a technical limitation, since there was no other way to do a similar blockchain fundraiser at the time.

Also where do you get this ridiculous notion about AGS receiving a bonus as if that was planned? I don't see how you can't seem to grasp how PTS (and the entire project) got its ass saved by the donations to the ags funds and ags-donaters did take the bigger risk as they had no way of divesting. Anybody who did so as a way of speculating was just doing it wrong. I personally recall many people not at all being convinced about bitsharesx or the peg holding as a sure thing even after launch. Ignoring that period of the donations post 2/28 is uncool.

Btw I do hold PTS, close to the same amount as I do AGS. I'm also helping trying to lower the PTS network transaction times at a loss compared to just buying PTS. Granted that I was helping the PTS network in the hope that it would be upgraded into a bigger, better, more productive, DPos-sessed Proto-DAC.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:56:04 am by JoeyD »

Xeldal

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #280 on: October 23, 2014, 01:07:17 pm »
That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #281 on: October 23, 2014, 06:31:40 pm »
That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #282 on: October 23, 2014, 06:40:55 pm »
That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #283 on: October 23, 2014, 06:41:16 pm »
there always was a LEGAL issue for I3 to make it liquid ..

that's also way they are using the term GIFT now .. they are "legally" not really making AGS liquid .. IMHO
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Xeldal

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #284 on: October 23, 2014, 06:44:33 pm »
Quote from: alphaBar
Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.
  Yes, and that is exactly what i said. 

Quote from: alphaBar
Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest.
Who is saying this? 

It is trivially easy to jump this 'technical hurdle' of AGS lock-in , but no one was willing to do it.  And without I3's sanction it would likely be unrecognized.