Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 46821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline robrigo



You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.

I agree. Rather than spreading the developer talent thin, this proposal is reuniting the cause, eliminating competition within the BTS ecosystem and sharpening focus. This is the right move considering the nearest competitor (Ethereum) already has a huge leg up on marketing.

You can view it in a negative light as i3 going back on the initial plan, but I prefer to look at it as a consolidation measure / pivot to make the BitShares ecosystem viable in the long run. Start ups pivot all the time when the market they are competing within changes, or flaws in initial designs / plans become apparent. They are proposing a flexible adaptation to stay viable against other BTC 2.0 technologies and unite the BitShares ecosystem under one cause / DAC.

 +5%

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
A thread on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2jwdoo/pts_holders_shafted_new_proposal_gifts_liquidity/

I agree that we should not deny liquidity to PTS holders.  No lockout for PTS.

People had a choice between PTS and AGS.  PTS meant 'you have liquidity, but you get less shares".  AGS meant you had no liquidity, but got more.


PTS should be given no lockout period to be fair to this.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx


You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile


You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

No, the answer is much simpler than that:  He simply didn't want BTSX to die:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg134808#msg134808
Sorry Stan but this doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Just a couple weeks ago you were talking about how BTSX was on the cusp of breaking out big and shocking everyone.  Then in the VOTE thread you guys stated that VOTE would be huge and even help BTSX to be bigger than before.  "Synergy", remember?

So was that all bullshit? And now this radical turn around for Bitshares is necessary otherwise BTSX DIES?

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbers
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low. Any AGS/PTS buyers post feb28 are screwed.
It is against the initial promise.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:55:59 pm by emski »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan


You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

No, the answer is much simpler than that:  He simply didn't want BTSX to die:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10279.msg134808#msg134808

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 amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile


You guys....  I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.

In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.

I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened.  Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch).  This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.

All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.

Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.

Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.

While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis.  (Unless BTSX goes up).


You are correct.  I did it wrong, multiplying by .03 for DNS and .07 for PTS.  But I needed to multiply by .03/.80 and .07/.80, because BTSX is getting 80%.


New numbers:
DNS should be 95 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS should be 6600 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).


PTS is already there, and has been for the past day.
DNS drops a bit more.

And none of those numbers account for liquidity premium, which for a 2 year vesting period should be significant. If the current plan is finalized, we could easily see both PTS and DNS drop by another 25% to 50%. IMO.
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
I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis.  (Unless BTSX goes up).


You are correct.  I did it wrong, multiplying by .03 for DNS and .07 for PTS.  But I needed to multiply by .03/.80 and .07/.80, because BTSX is getting 80%.


New numbers:
DNS should be 95 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).
PTS should be 6600 satoshis (at BTSX 6300 sat).


PTS is already there, and has been for the past day.
DNS drops a bit more.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
 +5% Go for it ... really great idea...
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline spartako

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
wallet_account_set_approval spartako

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)

If I understand correctly, even after 50% drop, you will still get more BTS by selling DNS for BTSX.

I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis.  (Unless BTSX goes up).

I'm getting that 95 would do it (BTSX price changing fast, though).

In other words, the selling is not irrational; it is not a panic; it is a market movement I told you to expect earlier in this thread :)
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I still am not convinced why we have the merge DAC's into one. this seems not preferable.

... as it stands I don't accept merging DAC's..

There are lots of benefits and solved problems with the proposal, but none of them are necessary to win the argument for merger.

The biggest argument is that, without merging PTS and AGS, Bytemaster will be obligated to keep making new competing DACs forever.  He will be obligated to make the best new DACs he knows how.  And he keeps learning how to make better DACs.  They will need most of the features of BTSX so they will compete to have the best bitUSD.  This would not be good for BTSX or any but the newest, biggest, bestest DAC he would be working on.

Except there wouldn't be a perpetual series of self-hobbled DACS because the first new one he would do would be a full-up BTS superDAC that is not constrained from competing aggressively.  (Because this is the best new DAC he knows how to do so far.)  This would simply kill BTSX because everyone would want to sell its shares to buy into BTS.

If he did start dividing up the features "fairly" among many small DACs, it would just open the door to outside competition to put them all back together into a BTS superDAC equivalent.

So there really is no choice. 
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 06:40:02 pm 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 Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Well, if irational panic selling continue to drop the price, I'll be happy to buy and get a discount on BTS (taking into account I don't mind the vesting period)

If I understand correctly, even after 50% drop, you will still get more BTS by selling DNS for BTSX.

I calculate that DNS needs to be about 75 satoshis.  (Unless BTSX goes up).

PTS needs to be about 5000-5500 satoshis. 

If BTSX goes up these numbers go up the same percentage.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 06:25:59 pm by Ander »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
The above allocation grants this many BTS to each of the stakeholder DACs:

99 BTS per PTS
87.5 BTS per AGS
0.015 BTS per DNS (i.e.: sell now before your stake is worthless)

7%*2.5Bil/1.648Mil  is ~ 106 per PTS

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.

0.00006*106 ~ 0.00636
 so no 50% drop expected for PTS ,IMHO.

The drop would be because of liquidity premium for BTSX versus PTS. Pre Feb 28 snapshot, PTS (the liquid one) had something like a 3x liquidity premium over AGS. Never underestimate the market value of liquidity...
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."