Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 47445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 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..
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline CalabiYau

Early investor here with PTS, AGS, BTSX. My engagement is based on the papers I read from bytemaster and some trust in the people behind I3. I have great respect for the work this team - with the support of a living community - has achieved so far.
 
I see the ideas behind this merger, but I have some problems and lack of time to analyze all the (known) facts in this complex matter. I have to trust the insiders regarding the direction this mothership has to steer. Therefore I support the merger.   

Vesting periods over crypto-eternal times for PTS are a fundamental change in the nature of this asset - I really can not agree with this proposal. Selling them today to express this stance is no option, to crash the market is not in the best interest of PTS holders.

Please reconsider solutions to keep PTS liquid. Also the dilution topic is very critical, if there is some impression that creating shares are the way to solve future problems the existing world of finance seems dangerously close.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 07:41:06 am by CalabiYau »

Offline onceuponatime

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

actually I am one of the victims since if I didn't read toast's statements I would for sure sold my dns before they tanked!


Well, you are not alone.  I bought DNS shares from the market after seeing toast's assurance.  I woke up in shock when I saw my DNS investment being decimated.  The sudden dive in price is because of a single post and over one night?  Wow!  This seems unreal to me.  Am I in the Matrix?   :o

The only consolation I find is that toast has no part in this.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135397#new

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
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

actually I am one of the victims since if I didn't read toast's statements I would for sure sold my dns before they tanked!


Well, you are not alone.  I bought DNS shares from the market after seeing toast's assurance.  I woke up in shock when I saw my DNS investment being decimated.  The sudden dive in price is because of a single post and over one night?  Wow!  This seems unreal to me.  Am I in the Matrix?   :o

The only consolation I find is that toast has no part in this.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG

I am more than fine with the allocation.
I have stated at least 7 times already - I do not believe a perfect allocation is possible... at all.

So, I will suggest a slight change [change that re-distributes only AGS] and keeps everything else untouched!

The logic for this re-adjustment is simple:

-pre Feb 28th AGS donors already received their share of BTSX and post Feb 28th did not.

So, instead of 7% to all AGS, I suggest:
-1% (or 2%) for pre Feb 28th AGS donors;
-6% (or 5%) for post Feb 28th AGS donors;

Should not be so hard to do.

Anything less than 10% for post Feb 28 AGS donors is direct breach of the promise. Furthermore the fact that the promise was 10%PTS/10%AGS/80% DEV means that developers would already be funded and there would be no need for dilution. The new proposal changes all that and it is especially hurtful to anyone obtaining PTS/AGS after feb28. Overall it is beneficial to the system as the merge itself is a good thing. I think it benefits significantly any BTSX buyer. However the forced 2 year rule on PTS/DNS/VOTE is ridiculous. And the allocation is unfair to post feb 28 PTS/AGS buyers/donators.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

I am more than fine with the allocation.
I have stated at least 7 times already - I do not believe a perfect allocation is possible... at all.

So, I will suggest a slight change [change that re-distributes only AGS] and keeps everything else untouched!

The logic for this re-adjustment is simple:

-pre Feb 28th AGS donors already received their share of BTSX and post Feb 28th did not.

So, instead of 7% to all AGS, I suggest:
-1% (or 2%) for pre Feb 28th AGS donors;
-6% (or 5%) for post Feb 28th AGS donors;

Should not be so hard to do.



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

hashbit

  • Guest
I understand the rationale behind the merger and mostly support it.  However, I agree that 2 years is a long time in the crypto world. 

If my BTS is from different sources, will only the portion granted from PTS be locked?  How will that work?

Offline yuxuan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
why add  4 billmion.  who buy

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 06:50:01 am by testz »
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Hey bytemaster,

I think you are a brilliant guy and you are doing a hell of a job!
Also I really liked how you handled the whole situation and the way you argued on the 'panic mumble session'. We are all learning and nothing is set in stone.
I even started to like the I3 way of saying we don't care about we've said yesterday (no offense!). This isn't even meant ironically. If you are moving fast, sometimes you have to break things.
But if people have to loose more than 50% of their investment please let them understand why. I am a rational guy and I like a good argument, so just bear with me for a second.

First, you mention that the only fair way to value a DAC is to do so according to their market cap.

Later, you start to argue that 'market cap' isn't 'market cap' because there wasn't enough liquidity. 
Which was quite high if you consider that everyone was pulling their bids from the books because of that proposal announcement.
Also you were using wrong numbers (which don't even come close to the real ones) to back it up.

Further toast assured on the forum that the invested money will be preserved.
Just have a look at the markets after the announcement.

But what really kind of upsets me a bit is the way you are playing your arguments.

"BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS"

You announce an ecosystem, a new DAC goes live, people invest and then you tell them
Hey don't be upset we could have destroyed you anyway?

I really want to understand why you think this valuation/allocation is right. The only argument that you have given is the liquidity one, which I guess hardly is one. 

Am I against this merger? No I support it. I think the idea is brilliant.
It sounds like VOTE and BTSX are a perfect match.  And I agree, if you start merging you can just to it right and go full circle.

I know this is one particular view and you have to take different angles to look at it.
But the proposal and the way you are arguing show that you are not taking the DNS DAC perspective.
Hence, this argument.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
this is just a PROPOSAL

if i didn't just lost a big junk of my capital i would love.

so you a aquire a stock who is not trading on the stockexchange and it is worthless, because you can't sell it? Rediculus argument. I don't get DNS and VOTE partners and developers. You had a big leverage, because bytemaster said official he would develope for the toolkit who will benefit more VOTE than BTSX and you get such a bad allocation. Sry, guys DNS and VOTE initators you failed big time. you sold my money and give it for free to the BTSX community. It tell's me something. Never, ever invest something who bytemaster is not directly invovled.

Today your ecosystem died and no 3rd party will get 1 BTS from me ever, if bytemaster is not directly involved. This is not a merger, this is a hostile takeover.

but on the forum the yes sayer are in majority, so i assume they are only in BTSX and lost today nothing.

Offline fuzzy

if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.

Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...

Have you come up with a proposal of your own yet?  Can you link me to it?  I'm interested to hear your opinion...not just on PTS/AGS, but a detailed plan. 

Stuff gets dirty sometimes in business...so I understand the frustration.  I'm simply trying to assess what you are bringing to the table right now.

My proposal is quite obvious. Discount the AGS percentage to account for granting them liquidity. The discount proportion should be such that each dollar spent on AGS gets the same equity as each dollar spend on PTS (on average). If AGS was liquid it would trade on-par with PTS dollar-for-dollar since that is literally the only difference between them. This is the objective value of liquidity as determined by the market. I don't actually care what the total percentage is granted to the other assets since that is truly subjective and difficult to quantify. My problem is that the AGS/PTS ratio is provably unfair since it assigns ZERO value to liquidity and, even worse, punishes PTS with a "vesting period"!

The vesting period is a bit insane imho.. but can we get confirmation that these are all set in stone?  Maybe we are making too much of this...
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.

Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...

Have you come up with a proposal of your own yet?  Can you link me to it?  I'm interested to hear your opinion...not just on PTS/AGS, but a detailed plan. 

Stuff gets dirty sometimes in business...so I understand the frustration.  I'm simply trying to assess what you are bringing to the table right now.

My proposal is quite obvious. Discount the AGS percentage to account for granting them liquidity. The discount proportion should be such that each dollar spent on AGS gets the same equity as each dollar spend on PTS (on average). If AGS was liquid it would trade on-par with PTS dollar-for-dollar since that is literally the only difference between them. This is the objective value of liquidity as determined by the market. I don't actually care what the total percentage is granted to the other assets since that is truly subjective and difficult to quantify. My problem is that the AGS/PTS ratio is provably unfair since it assigns ZERO value to liquidity and, even worse, punishes PTS with a "vesting period"!

Offline 小宝马2014

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: xbm
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!

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
would be much easier to accept it, if I3 and bytemaster and toast etc. would do this

"We will start a new DAC and take a snapshot on 5.11.14. . If we promised 10% AGS and 10% PTS allocation are granted. Our future strategy changened so it will be the last DAC honoring the social consensus of AGS and PTS. The social consensus will granted to the new DAC just call it "BitShares".

To give all our responsibles a piece of the new pie. We will allocate 72% to BTSX holders (because I3 will not develop BTSX) 4% and 4% to DNS and VOTE shares, because the developers and partners are joining our new efforts."


something like this. But violeting the social consensus because you can (bytemaster is such an important person) is such bad behavior.