Proposed Allocation for Merger

[bitmeat]

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. 

Please, for the love of God, realize this is wrong on so many levels.

If someone sells the vested 25% after 6 months, they should still be able to sell the other 75% when they vest.

Just make it gradually vest 1% per week, regardless of what is sold. How hard is that?!?

You just have to check the time stamp v.s. the original balance to see how much balance is currently available.

I'd like an official response from BM on this item. Either I'm not understanding the mechanics, or there is a serious problem in the making.

[spoonman]

Will BTS be a new block chain or a fork of BTSX?

[emski]

AGS/PTS holders effectively got their combined 20%  (everyone that has bought and held PTS since before the DNS snapshot).

Again this is one part of the coin. In the original promise AGS/PTS would get 20%. Checked!
However the original promise was that developers would get 80% for development and promotions. This would make dilution highly unlikely.
The proposal handles the 80% to different shareholders. This requires dilution. This is not what the original promise was.

[xeroc]

The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.

I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years.   I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS. 

Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole?   It was a very hard decision for everyone.

 
Thanks for OFFICIALLY highlighting it!

[bytemaster]

The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.

I think this point cannot be driven home enough.... FollowMyVote had 30% stake in VOTE and now has 1% stake vesting over 2 years.   I3 had a much larger stake in VOTE than in BTSX and now has a much smaller stake in BTS and Toast had a much larger stake in DNS and now has a small stake in BTS. 

Would the core developers agree to this strategy if they didn't think it would be better for them as a whole?   It was a very hard decision for everyone.

[Empirical1.1]

I think the problem is BTSX can agree to things thanks to DPOS whereas it's very hard to reach consensus in the other areas of BitShares conceived before DPOS.

VOTE DAC + dilution would have forked features like BitUSD, Marketplace & possibly DNS. it would have used dilution to drive a network effect. This will make it hard for BTSX, PTS, AGS & DNS  to compete. However the VOTE DAC is not limited from pursuing that strategy.

BTSX has realised they would be uncompetitive within BitShares vs. VOTE and has largely agreed to a dilution so that it can pursue VOTE DAC strategy. (Dilution and more features than BitAssets) BTSX can also agree to this separately via DPOS without a merger this week. They are perfectly in their rights to do so.

Perhaps by next week the implications of a more competitive BTSX will be apparent to AGS, PTS, DNS etc.

The only people who've lost out in the equity deals are the key talent that drive the underlying development. If this was a centralised venture they'd have much more equity.

[f_bull]

Shit!
So bad proposed!
We(AGSer+PTSer) want not BTSX,not trading liquidity， We want 10% Equity of all the third DAC forever.

 

[f_bull]

DNS、PTS  have 2 year vesting period，Why？？？？？

[Stan]

i wil say it again - this is not a merger.

all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.

So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.

- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing

question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.

why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?

i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.

don't call it a merger - it is not!

every promise was broken.

i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.

on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.

sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.

I understand how you feel.  There are no easy answers, but the best I have for you is this:  BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS.    No merger, no buy out, just competition in a free market.   Would that have been breaking any promises?   Would you have lost more or less money as a result?

All the promotion made by 3i made many people believe that bts will focus on the distributed market & monetary stuff, DNS will do keyid/domain stuff and there will be no DNS2. 
This plan makes me fill betrayed.

And I also lost a lot of money in DNS, bought quite a lot just few days ago, and was now fucked!

Far from being betrayed, you were defended.
   Where would you be if a competitor had announced BTS to compete with DNS?
   Where would you be if Bytemaster had just built VOTE to be as strong as it can be (with its own internal DNS)?
Same exact place, with no one looking out for your interests.

[bytemaster]

Lets look at DNS...

1) In my opinion domains should be bid for in USD and leased/renewed in USD (or perhaps silver)
2) This means that DNS would end up having BitAssets competing with BTSX.
3) This means that given DNSs dilution ability it had the potential to provide serious competition to BTSX

Under that case, DNS would be stealing BTSX features and BTSX users would be pissed and the market confused about DNS-USD vs X-USD.   

I would rather view the DNS deal as being diluted to gain a smaller piece of a much larger pie. 

By the way... I3 has only ever said we would develop the best possible toolkit.   It is up to others to decide how to use it best.  So what is really going on here is that toast and I realized that DNS would be BETTER as part of a larger whole.

AGS/PTS holders effectively got their combined 20%  (everyone that has bought and held PTS since before the DNS snapshot).
DNS holders got *something*.... what would have happened to DNS had BTSX decided to simply compete and toast headed up the project?   I suspect you would have seen a similar collapse in DNS price.   Would that be Toast's fault? 

I have been completely hands off on DNS (other than seeding some ideas and giving Toast a grant to do as he wishes)... it has been Toasts project.   He has called all of the shots.  He is one of the largest stake holders.  That project could continue, but clearly Toast sees the value proposition as being better for him.   Now all value is relative and in the eye of the beholder.   

 

[linyibo010]

this is not a merger !

i am in favor of the merger, but this allocation is rediculus.

DNS 3% - thanks for the suggestion my DNS are now worthless but today the marketcap is 4.1 million, but you tell me it is worth 1.5 million??? holy crap!!!!
AGS is promised 10% of any future DAC I3 will create - this is a new DAC you can not brack your promise aka Social Consensus they need 10%

in my eyes this is not a merger, this is a take over of BTSX holders and the robbery of early funders. i am speachless!

2 years with not able to sell is OK if any merger partner has to do it. So no trading for the next 2 years, because BTSX will not be tradeable in the future for 2 years. Otherwise forget it. I don't see the need why i have to lock up my DNS for 2 years.

I agree！
I am in favor of the merger,but this is not a merger !

[flydragon]

i wil say it again - this is not a merger.

all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.

So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.

- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing

question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.

why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?

i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.

don't call it a merger - it is not!

every promise was broken.

i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.

on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.

sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.

I understand how you feel.  There are no easy answers, but the best I have for you is this:  BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS.    No merger, no buy out, just competition in a free market.   Would that have been breaking any promises?   Would you have lost more or less money as a result?

All the promotion made by 3i made many people believe that bts will focus on the distributed market & monetary stuff, DNS will do keyid/domain stuff and there will be no DNS2. 
This plan makes me fill betrayed.

And I also lost a lot of money in DNS, bought quite a lot just few days ago, and was now fucked!

[bennyliaa]

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.

Hi, Stan, I realize that merge the DACs into one is a good proposal.
But one thing I have more concern is that the proposal for the AGS before 2.28 againest after 2.28.
May be we can seperate them for allocating the stock of the DACs developed by Core team.
Would you like to spend some time on calculating the accurate percentage of themfor getting the bts&Other DACs allocation result, including the part before proposal and after proposal.
I think this should help us more understanding the one's feeling under this proposal who donate AGS after 2.28.

Merge DACs into one surly is a good thing for all of us, but I think the proposal need to base on more accurate calculating result/number and it is better post a profit table form here.
Looking forward to your replay.

[emski]

Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.

pre feb28 got snapshotted.
The main issue is with post feb28 AGS/PTS.

[cryptillionaire]

Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.