Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 43322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #90 on: October 21, 2014, 07:58:22 pm »
One sentence on how VOTE will eclipse and Kill BTSX.  Just one sentence, no secrets, no slippery slope, no pie in the sky. One sentence with a fact or even a plausible theory.

Are you blindly following?

Here's a news flash, VOTE WILL NEVER ECLIPSE BTSX? VOTE has zero monetary potential. If Bytemaster wants to leave BTSX and devote all time to VOTE, so be it. Remember he and the I3 others have the largest stake to lose. Has I3 ever canvassed for a new Dev to help out? I certainly never saw a call. I am afraid something is going on behind science we are not privy to.


Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #91 on: October 21, 2014, 08:00:30 pm »
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbers
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
I fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...

disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.

There's nothing about this that makes it the actual end of AGS, right? The AGS donation list is still there, and we could still say the social consensus (in tatters though it may be) demands honoring it 10%. Or we could update the social consensus to say that you can honor PTS/AGS or the new BTS. Or we could say honor BTS and AGS or something like that.

However, it really does seem like post-Feb 28 AGS donators are getting shafted with this proposal.

Disclaimer: I donated almost nothing to AGS because I needed liquidity.
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #92 on: October 21, 2014, 08:04:51 pm »
One sentence on how VOTE will eclipse and Kill BTSX.  Just one sentence, no secrets, no slippery slope, no pie in the sky. One sentence with a fact or even a plausible theory.

Are you blindly following?

Here's a news flash, VOTE WILL NEVER ECLIPSE BTSX? VOTE has zero monetary potential. If Bytemaster wants to leave BTSX and devote all time to VOTE, so be it. Remember he and the I3 others have the largest stake to lose. Has I3 ever canvassed for a new Dev to help out? I certainly never saw a call. I am afraid something is going on behind science we are not privy to.

NewMine, we can always count on you for a good dose of bluster.

Nobody here knows what VOTE is all about. Nobody has anything other than vague hypotheses.

This is what happened, as far as I can guess: BM got really excited about VOTE the other day, and wouldn't tell us why. Then, behind the scenes, he started working on it, and his friends said "hey! stop it! BTSX isn't done yet!" And BM replied and said "But BTSX is boring! How about we figure out a way to roll the VOTE features into BTSX so that I don't have to split my time between what's boring and what's exciting?"

I bet dollars to donuts that's essentially what happened. Stan was exaggerating when he said VOTE would kill BTSX, but the idea was sound: if BM is going to work on both, everything would work better if he could work on them simultaneously.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what happened behind the scenes. I made all that up, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline thisisausername

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #93 on: October 21, 2014, 08:08:16 pm »
I'm 100% against this proposal. EDIT: I support the merge but not with these numbers
What AGS/PTS get is ridiculously low.
It is against the initial promise.
I fully agree with this. Agree with the merger but the allocation is so low for PTS/AGS after Feb28! Those were the ppl that donated most of the AGS dev fund...

disclaimer: I donated more to AGS after Feb28 than before.
+5% the incredibly low percentage along with the incredibly long vesting period soaks PTS/AGS holders far too much.
Pjo39s6hfpWexsZ6gEBC9iwH9HTAgiEXTG

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #94 on: October 21, 2014, 08:09:40 pm »

Adam earnest gets 1%? For real?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.9%.  Or rather "Follow My Vote" does.  I am not sure what that entity is.

Follow my Vote was at the right place to work with Toast and his keygraph id likely leveraging the real id stuff of VOTE.  The thing is, all this intellectual property was I3s from anything I can see.  So I won't speak to what was or what wasn't done by VOTE, but it sounds pretty sweet to me.  And I don't think anything has to be done to be paid. :)  Proven marketer indeed.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:11:23 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

TurkeyLeg

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #95 on: October 21, 2014, 08:10:01 pm »
 +5% Support.....how do I officially vote in support of BM's proposal?

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #96 on: October 21, 2014, 08:13:44 pm »
+5% Support.....how do I officially vote in support of BM's proposal?

It's not official, but there is a poll here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10247.0

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #97 on: October 21, 2014, 08:14:58 pm »
+5% support for the proposal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline graffenwalder

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #98 on: October 21, 2014, 08:18:49 pm »
Quote
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. 

Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
I thought it was only for AGS and PTS.

If so, there would be an serious incentive to keep BTSX on centralized exchanges.
Because I guess they would simply drop the x, and continue trading.
And so the vesting period would be avoided.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #99 on: October 21, 2014, 08:29:18 pm »
Once sentence on why VOTE would eclipse BTSX...

VOTE was shaping up to have all of the features of BTSX + DNS + Bazzar + VOTE's market strategy + all of the developers.  Why was it going to get all of the developers, because Adam had a 30% stake with which to hire us all and Agent 86 was making a compelling case of the need for dilution and developers with a major stake. 

Why... because BTSX was DAC Sun's chain, had a development budget that was capped, and had no ability to raise capital. 

Because people were starting to freak out that VOTE with that feature set and team would be a threat to BTSX and starting to dump BTSX on the mere rumor.

 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline GaltReport

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #100 on: October 21, 2014, 08:30:22 pm »
Quote
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. 

Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?
I thought it was only for AGS and PTS.

If so, there would be an serious incentive to keep BTSX on centralized exchanges.
Because I guess they would simply drop the x, and continue trading.
And so the vesting period would be avoided.
please clarify this.  I ASSUME this doesn't apply to current BTSX holders.  You wouldn't lock their FREE (as in freedom) shares would you?  That's not acceptable.  Couple have asked so BM please clarify it's only for those that are being merged (PTS/AGS ?).

That aside, go for it!
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:32:28 pm by GaltReport »

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #101 on: October 21, 2014, 08:31:15 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.

Should have been:
7% VOTE
7% DNS
8% PTS
8% AGS
70% BTSX

 ::)

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #102 on: October 21, 2014, 08:31:22 pm »
Quote
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. 

Is the vesting period for btsx, dns, Vote, AGS and PTS?

No vesting period on BTSX.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #103 on: October 21, 2014, 08:32:22 pm »
The more I think about capital infusion the more I like it.. in hindsight.

The finance masters all say the perfect currency is one which ties supply to growth(GDP)... and this would be the closest thing to that. It wouldn't keep growing supply needlessly but based on demand based on a consensus for a new technology. Democratized money supply growth.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:36:44 pm by jsidhu »
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #104 on: October 21, 2014, 08:34:06 pm »
Once sentence on why VOTE would eclipse BTSX...

VOTE was shaping up to have all of the features of BTSX + DNS + Bazzar + VOTE's market strategy + all of the developers.  Why was it going to get all of the developers, because Adam had a 30% stake with which to hire us all and Agent 86 was making a compelling case of the need for dilution and developers with a major stake. 

Why... because BTSX was DAC Sun's chain, had a development budget that was capped, and had no ability to raise capital. 

Because people were starting to freak out that VOTE with that feature set and team would be a threat to BTSX and starting to dump BTSX on the mere rumor.

What happened to all the money raised through AGS?  Are you paying yourselves through AGS and then DACsun is paying you too? Serious question, no implications.

I was under the impression AGS was for the toolkit and BTSX (the flagship DAC). Did you run out of money?

*side note

What happens to my bitUSD in BTSX? Are you going to force me to sell when the merger happens or will my bitUSD transfer over?

** also

That 30% is worthless and you have no idea what it will be priced at. Unless I missed something. You guys working on contingency is you working for free until something is realized later on. So I am sorry to say that funds to pay the Dev team isn't a valid reason.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:46:19 pm by NewMine »