Proposed Allocation for Merger

[emski]

And AGS has 0 liquidity.

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.

That is the reason I didn't mention AGS at all.

[blahblah7up]

And AGS has 0 liquidity.

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.

[linyibo010]

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

[emski]

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. 

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

The same way it is not possible to buy every share at the market price. DNS had a healthy volume relative to it's market cap. You guys are making a big mistake that will result in tons of bad PR. DNS will come in history as a pump & dump coin and this will reflect on a BTS price. Besides, you will not only lose some people, you will gain enemies.

But whatever, i support merger, just strongly do not agree with the allocation.

PS: i will lose like $20 from bad allocation of DNS. I'm just very concerned about future BTS price and other people losses 

Who cares about market price? AGS certainly not.
What matters is the promise. It is not fulfilled. This is what matters. Lack of integrity IS a big deal. I believe merge is a positive step. I think that bitshares will still grow despite the numbers in the merge. However this forced single-handed breach of social contract is failure to keep the promise. This alone casts a shadow on the III , BM and Stan's reputation. If you only consider the facts they didn't keep their promise about 10% at least for post feb28 contributors. Pre feb28 contributors are unaffected. Liquidity of PTS/DNS/VOTE is so outrageous that I dont want to even discuss it.

[vegolino]

I support merger and trust bytemaster that he has done his maths honestly as possible given the circumstances. 
Market seems to like the Merger Coinmarketcap +21.16% up at the time of writing      

[stuartcharles]

I think the lock out is to keep the devs that gain a large share offer from liquidating. From this sense BM negotiated a great deal for us. Maybe it should only be applied to those people that were tied in for good reason?

Saying that its kind of hard to change anything now, the market is pricing in the proposal and changing it again is going to upset a whole new group of people.

As a disclaimer - I own assets from all DAC's, PTS and AGS. I have added to my positions all the way but i have never sold anything.

[zonda]

Also what does vesting period means? Does that mean if I sell my BTSX stake in a future I get only a part of it, or is this only for PTS, AGS?

[zonda]

So looking at the market and at the price of PTS and BTSX, this deal is the best for BTSX holders, right?

Also will the total supply of newly created BTS be increased and move from 2B?

Thanks

[bitcoinerS]

PTS should be given no lockout period to be fair.

 

[inarizushi]

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.

 

New poll ? I guess we can have >80% agreement on that...

[ripplexiaoshan]

In my opinion, the part for PTS and DNS should be frozen, because they are liquid. For AGS, no problem.

pts and dns should be frozen!

I meant "Should not be frozen", my mistake...

[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.

[kbrom]

2 years
too long time~

[svk]

I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.

This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.

Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.

The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.

Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..

You may be reacting on incomplete informatiom. Please wait until this is clarified:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396

Toast already commented on this though, saying it's about 20% that's getting removed, so we're still dealing with 4 billion DNS.

Guess we'll have to wait till they wake up for final confirmation.

[onceuponatime]

I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.

This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.

Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.

The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.

Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..

You may be reacting on incomplete informatiom. Please wait until this is clarified:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396