Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 43277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #105 on: October 21, 2014, 08:35:08 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.

 +5%

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12919
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #106 on: October 21, 2014, 08:36:20 pm »
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. 
+5%
But: stop talking .. competitors are listening :)

Offline Pheonike

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #107 on: October 21, 2014, 08:39:05 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?

Its still there. If you know you have $50 dollars but need $100, do you what until the $50 is gone before raising the next $50? No you start raising the next $50 while you have the original $50.

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #108 on: October 21, 2014, 08:42:01 pm »
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger?  There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #109 on: October 21, 2014, 08:42:46 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.

I'll take that donut bet!

Answered already here:

Quote
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

Guys:  It didn't have to be VOTE.  Any new DAC that Bytemaster chose to work on next to honor his commitments to AGS/PTS holders would be built using (as duty would require) all his lessons learned.  That means it would be designed to compete for max Network Effect.  It would have whatever features the new DAC had plus Dynamic Value Infusion plus bitAssets.

VOTE has a neat secret sauce for adding to BTSX network effect so it would win.

But any DAC Dan chose to do next would be a SuperDAC.  Even if it just had a cute doge meme.

Then there would be no more DACs after that because he would have built the best thing he now knows how to do:  a DAC that doesn't have rules that keep it from competing with everything it's got.  A DAC that is aggressively flexible.  A DAC that can receive every good infusion of technology that ever pops up.  So BTSX can either merge and enjoy the benefits or sit out and watch SuperDuperDogeDAC suck all the air out of the room.

So there.  Sorry it was more than "Just one sentence, no secrets, no slippery slope, no pie in the sky. One sentence with a fact or even a plausible theory.'"
 :)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:49:30 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 GaltReport

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #110 on: October 21, 2014, 08:43:39 pm »
I have a very simplistic view of this whole VOTE was going to be bigger than BTSX thing.  To me, the whole VOTE "thing" is just a useful metaphor/vehicle.  Bottom line is is that BM is driven to create his vision.  That vision naturally changes as we learn more.  Would be crazy if it didn't.  Whether through VOTE or simply through forking it himself...BM (or as he would say, "our competitors" which includes possibly BM himself) wants the freedom to create the vision (including the changed vision!)  that many of us bought into.  I say he's earned it.

Edit:  That's why I don't pay too much attention to the VOTE analysis.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 08:46:40 pm by GaltReport »

Offline bytemaster

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #111 on: October 21, 2014, 08:44:06 pm »
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger?  There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.

No need to claim on other chains.   
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 blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #112 on: October 21, 2014, 08:46:23 pm »
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger?  There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.

No need to claim on other chains.   

Thanks

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #113 on: October 21, 2014, 08:48:54 pm »
7%*2.5Bil/1.648Mil  is ~ 106 per PTS

BTSX price now is 0.0000682
0.0000682*106 = 0.0072 PTS

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #114 on: October 21, 2014, 08:50:07 pm »
Do AGS holders have to claim BTSX and DNS before the merger?  There is still no safe way to do this without exposing private keys.

No need to claim on other chains.

Can my bitUSD be carried over to the new DAC?

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #115 on: October 21, 2014, 08:58:26 pm »
It will not disturb the markets in progress any more than one of our recent upgrades.
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 xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12919
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #116 on: October 21, 2014, 08:59:44 pm »
Can my bitUSD be carried over to the new DAC?
From what BM told us in the recent talk ... the current chain will be upgraded .. so there will be more hard forks .. to get in the other stakes .. but the current system will continue running .. AFAIK

Offline bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #117 on: October 21, 2014, 09:05:03 pm »
I invested quite a lot into DNS close to the ATH, I didn't care if it was above avg. price because of what was announced for the DAC,
didn't panic as the discussions started because toast stated clearly in the forum that the invested funds will be preserved.
I know there is a lot on your plate, but this proposal may just have cost me a lot. Although it was stated otherwise earlier on.
You can't announce a DAC, push it to exchanges to start trading, announce coming features and than 'dump it'

Sorry.... I really tried to write this in an a lot more calm way. I know it's just a proposal, but one that hurt me quite a bit already.

Why is the DNS DAC treated differently?  From the BTSX point of view this 'merger' would mean to pick up the DNS DAC as a bargain.
When we try to take a look at it from the DNS DAC perspective it is a hard sell.
A buy out of DNS at below 50% market value? And we are talking about a market value before any decent GUI and full functionality was released.
It would be very unlikely that the sharesholders of a start up in that phase would sell out at that rate, right?

Disclaimer: I am invested in DNS ;) And I don't want to come on too strong as I know this is a proposal.
If you don't agree with my remarks, let me know.  Actually I like the idea of a merger but from  the DNS perspective it does not seem right.

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #118 on: October 21, 2014, 09:05:51 pm »
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #119 on: October 21, 2014, 09:09:28 pm »
DNS gets only 3% unfairly. VOTE didn't had a market cap so it would be hard to argue, but DNS was valued at 200 satoshis minimum and had ~$4M market cap.

But only $10K in liquidity.   We could have easily sold enough vote to push its price down to a value far lower than it is at today... and we would have done that had we chosen to simply compete rather than buy them out.   Buying out DNS was a gesture of good will that was mainly done because it was 90%+ AGS/PTS snapshot once we remove the developer funds from it.

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.