Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 43287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline spartako

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #60 on: October 21, 2014, 06:28:25 pm »
+5% let's do it!
wallet_account_set_approval spartako

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #61 on: October 21, 2014, 06:30:17 pm »
 +5% Go for it ... really great idea...
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #62 on: October 21, 2014, 06:33:28 pm »
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 biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #63 on: October 21, 2014, 06:35:39 pm »
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 amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2014, 06:38:49 pm »


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 Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #65 on: October 21, 2014, 06:43:15 pm »


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 emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2014, 06:49:17 pm »
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 amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #67 on: October 21, 2014, 06:51:47 pm »


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 Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #68 on: October 21, 2014, 06:57:11 pm »


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 Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #69 on: October 21, 2014, 07:03:39 pm »
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 robrigo

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #70 on: October 21, 2014, 07:05:01 pm »


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 pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #71 on: October 21, 2014, 07:08:59 pm »
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.

Toast will not be including his developer grant.

Thanks for the clarification. What about the currently unallocated 50% DNS?
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline kokojie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #72 on: October 21, 2014, 07:10:59 pm »
2 years vesting period is too long. Rather than reducing stakes for early withdrawal, just make 25% available at 6 month mark, 50% at 1 year mark, 100% available at 2 year mark etc... gradual vesting

Offline URSAY

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #73 on: October 21, 2014, 07:12:40 pm »
I've been into bitcoin since the early days.  BitSharesX has been one of the more confusing offerings.  Simplifying and streamlining the eco-system is essential for new user adoption and growth.

You have the features.  Making these features easier to use, providing documentation, and improving on these features will drive further adoption.  :)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:14:32 pm by URSAY »

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #74 on: October 21, 2014, 07:12:46 pm »
2 years vesting period is too long. Rather than reducing stakes for early withdrawal, just make 25% available at 6 month mark, 50% at 1 year mark, 100% available at 2 year mark etc... gradual vesting

I'm pretty sure that's what BM meant when he called it "linear."
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."