Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 47054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Questions: Vesting period is for who? PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE? Or just PTS/AGS? Or... other?

Shentist also mentioned this - why the incredibly low valuation for DNS? Anybody who's smart should go sell all their DNS right now because if this proposal goes through, the price of DNS will crash by almost two-thirds, or much more than that if DNS is included in the vesting thing.

Edit: People can argue about the length of the vesting period; but like Ander said, 2 years is forever in crypto. A 2-year period will utterly crush the price of PTS because people can trade them for BTSX and get liquidity, and currently BTSX and PTS give equal amounts of BTS for the value. I'd expect a 50% drop in PTS price would be mild.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 05:35:21 pm by biophil »
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
3/3/7/7/80 is similar to the 10/10/80 proposal.  (Which wasnt calculating DNS and VOTE in there - and the DNS and VOTE shares are pretty much allocations to PTS and AGS).  This lines up well with market caps so it is pretty fair.


I do think the 2 year lockout period is very long.  2 years is forever in crypto. 


That said, as a primarily BTSX holder I definitely vote yes.  The only ones who might have a big complaint I think are those mostly in AGS/PTS, because the lockout period is very long.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
You've done it again. All is good, but the vesting period is totally screwed.


Make the vesting start at least at 50%, and then greadually get to 100% over 2 years. To start the vesting at 0% is ludicrous.

You will regret this and very soon if you implement as suggested.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
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.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 05:25:05 pm by Shentist »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX

So, to recap: there will be 2.5 billion BTS. 3% of these are allocated to DNS, that's 75 million BTS. The initial allocation of DNS granted 10% to toast, that's 7.5 million BTS or about 200.000 USD at current price. IOW toast will receive 200k USD for bringing the DNS chain to the point where it is now, which is little more than an initial clone of the bitshares toolkit?

And you call that a "merger" and "capital infusion"? Oh boy.

Wow you're really following the money. Did you find anything else?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I support this proposal. Thank you for your long term vision, for the high value you place on community consensus, and for taking action decisively rather than letting things drag on. This is it...the new BitShares!

Offline ag

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
I still am not convinced why we have the merge DAC's into one. this seems not preferable.

I think I have solution to the bitUSD competing issue, which I think is largest problem. that solution is for DAC's that need a stable medium of exchange to accept user issued bitUSD IOU's as means of payment. as long as we are growing bitshares bitUSD adoption through other DAC's, funding and network effect seems less of issue.

I explained this idea yesterday in two other posts. still would like to know the problem with this. as it stands I don't accept merging DAC's..

Quote
you can have bitUSD gateways on the vote and dns chains. In the simplest form, just a user with bitshares and vote/DNS account which take bitUSD deposits on the bitshares blockchain, and issue bitUSD IOU's (essentially user issued tokens) on the second blockchain. these IOU's just facilitate exchange on the specific DAC. for instance with the music DAC these IOU's are used to buy artist coin or with DNS domains. the person receiving these IOU's will want to redeem them immediately with the gateway for interest bearing bitUSD.

Quote
It's the same concept of bitstamp taking dollar deposits and issuing IOUS on the ripple ledger. this is transferring the dollar from the bank ledger to ripple ledger. A bitshares/peertrack gateway would take deposits in bitshares bitUSD, issue IOUS on peertracks and correspondingly redeem / destroy those IOUS.


busygin

  • Guest
I was against any increase of BTSX supply at first but following the discussion convinced me the merge is the right thing to do. Fully support the proposed allocation. Let's get it done!
 +5%

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Bytemaster, the 2-year vesting period is not good--it's too restrictive and will unnecessarily harm everyone by imposing more risk on people's portfolios. Also, AGS, PTS should get 10% each as they don't have a seat at the negotiating table.

I think the 2 year vesting period is great. The idea is to make everyone a stakeholder but you still have to have some order to it or there will be people acting irrationally. One of the best decisions by Satoshi Nakamoto was the block halving reward is on a set schedule. Everyone knows when it will happen and looks forward to it which allows the market to price that event into the current price of Bitcoin.

Having a 2 year vesting period gives everyone a fair amount of time to adjust to the new normal. People who are getting Bitshares X 2 years from now will have a much better Bitshares than the people who got in on it first but at the same time the people who got in on it first will have had the time to make their hedges so that they can avoid losing their positions.

Just so I understand, 500 million new shares created? If someone chooses to access their new shares before the 2 year period, where does the penalty go. Is it burned? Does it go to the delegates?

It ought to be burned. That is a good question to ask.


Without knowing the burn rate we cannot really say if it will even make a difference that 500 million new shares are created. It's very possible that some breakthrough could happen and the burn rate could dramatically increase to compensate for the new shares created.

The idea here is that Bytemaster seems to have done a stakeholder analysis and wants to unify stakeholders in the community.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 05:18:01 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
 +5%
I Like it. Let's go.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Can someone explain how putting ags/pts into bts is not zero sum for i3 related dacs rolling forward?
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX

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. 

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.

Thank you for giving an extraordinary effort to make a fair allocation. The 2 year vesting period accomplishes the goal of creating more stakeholders without hurting the previous generation of stakeholders.

In 2 years either Bitshares X will have made the original stakeholders a lot of money or it will have failed. So these 2 years are critical.

The dilution cap of 10% I think is reasonable. Consider that the inactivity fee is already 5% and the dilution being limited to 10% is concrete enough that the market can factor this into it's pricing.

What will the total amount of BTSX be at the end of all this?

Do BTSX owners get shares in VOTE/DNS or is it just the other way around? It seems BTSX owners are set to lose 20% over 2 years.

The key point to make is that this will only happen if they are inactive. If they take active measures then they can prevent themselves from losing shares by simply pegging to BitGLD correct? Perhaps you and others should give an instruction manual so people can make the necessary economic adjustments. The fact that there is a vesting period means there is enough time for adjustments to be made without market panic.

In this case I think we will need more BitAssets to come online. A positive side effect of all of this is that it can perhaps encourage people to use Bitshares X for what it's designed for but the people who are likely to be hurt are the people who put BTSX into cold storage.

So we need a way to put BitGLD or BitBTC in cold storage and then I think everything will be alright. We need to set a priority to make it easier for people to store their BitAssets in cold storage.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
3% VOTE
3% DNS
7% PTS
7% AGS
80% BTSX

So, to recap: there will be 2.5 billion BTS. 3% of these are allocated to DNS, that's 75 million BTS. The initial allocation of DNS granted 10% to toast, that's 7.5 million BTS or about 200.000 USD at current price. IOW toast will receive 200k USD for bringing the DNS chain to the point where it is now, which is little more than an initial clone of the bitshares toolkit?

And you call that a "merger" and "capital infusion"? Oh boy.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline roadscape

« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 06:14:28 pm by roadkill »
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline Riverhead

Quote
No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.

- Helmuth von Moltke the Elder