Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 43297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline inarizushi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #150 on: October 21, 2014, 11:28:13 pm »
Guys,

There is lot of games (i.e. Game Theory) going on here. Arguments are not the only card in this game. It is impossible to resolve it by democratic means.

On the other hand B.M has its Vision having hard time to draw picture for all. Although I disapprove with pragmatic nature of his deciding this is probably territory from where his genius come from. 
 
Bottom line is: Do we trust this guy or not?

I say Yes and going to act accordingly.
Good Luck
+5%
I love how BM has the balls to impose his vision. I hate how our fate is not in our hands : it's just true that the promises are not kept. I hate the fact that many people here will lose money (I lost 1 BTC in DNS today, I feel bad for those who put more in it) just because of what BM says.

I have no better choice that trusting him also. Good luck indeed

I hope music won't be included in the superDAC.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #151 on: October 21, 2014, 11:30:00 pm »
I hope this will not hurt BTS price. But you are leaving open doors for bashing by the competitors.  :(

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #152 on: October 21, 2014, 11:36:50 pm »
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.

This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #153 on: October 21, 2014, 11:42:06 pm »
Also those vesting rules are terrible, it should just be a simple continuous drip to each balance which keeps vesting if you withdraw partially

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #154 on: October 21, 2014, 11:45:22 pm »
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline springlh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #155 on: October 21, 2014, 11:51:34 pm »
agree, this proposal is totally unacceptable to the current pts/dns holders! Rediculas!

来自我的 HUAWEI HN3-U01 上的 Tapatalk

PTS: Pu3UNPm2CbkZw8s7zreArHm472x8F3uWXj
新浪微博 - http://weibo.com/philipli

Offline Riverhead

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #156 on: October 22, 2014, 12:01:32 am »
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Without clarity on this the DNS percentage isn't very informative due to the huge blocks of DNS that might come out.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #157 on: October 22, 2014, 12:03:08 am »
Just buy btsx.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline bytemaster

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #158 on: October 22, 2014, 12:04:27 am »
Actually the allocation is ok if you remove *all* non-ags/pts-based stake from dns and vote. Excluding packpay done from dns dev fund which I'm setting aside now.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Without clarity on this the DNS percentage isn't very informative due to the huge blocks of DNS that might come out.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I thought that was what we had discussed yesterday.... the amount of DNS in circulation minus the dev fund still in Toasts control.   The result is that we capture the AGS/PTS and anyone one who did work on DNS.   
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 amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #159 on: October 22, 2014, 12:21:09 am »


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.
Oh really?  The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence?  A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm.  BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse?  Please tell me you aren't this naive.

It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much.  Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.

Quote from: bytemaster
...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin.  It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained.....  the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....

The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other...  there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).   

The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.

The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...

I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.

I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen.  Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run.  I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.

It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team).  Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.

Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #160 on: October 22, 2014, 12:23:46 am »
And is the idea of this to be a continuous linear vesting, so after 2 days I get (1/365) of the shares?

Can anyone answer this question?
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #161 on: October 22, 2014, 12:26:54 am »


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.
Oh really?  The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence?  A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm.  BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse?  Please tell me you aren't this naive.

It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much.  Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.

Quote from: bytemaster
...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin.  It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained.....  the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....

The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other...  there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).   

The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.

The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...

I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.

I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen.  Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run.  I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.

It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team).  Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.

Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.

This will be a great post to come back and laugh at someday.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034
 8)

Yes.  You did just watch us evolve all this in dynamic real time.
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
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #162 on: October 22, 2014, 12:35:29 am »
Stan, Bytemaster, somoene, can we get a clarification on the DNS allocation:

Bytemaster just stated that the 80% dev state was to be removed first.


Does this mean that actually there are only about 1 billion DNS shares which are going to be given the 3% stake in BTS, meaning that they should NOT have tanked 50% today? 

Or is the share count 5 billion, which means they should be around half what they currently are?


https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #163 on: October 22, 2014, 12:45:18 am »
I thought it was a priority to avoid a situation where an announcement gave someone an information advantage (meaning we were thinking only in terms of current % of market cap).

It doesn't matter anymore because the market has adjusted the price of all assets for this allocation. So any change after the OP would just be BM deciding which current asset holder (AGS, PTS, DNS, BTSX) gets more BTS... meaning this basically has to be the real allocation.

NVM, obviously everyone is so confused that the prices don't mean anything. Every time I joke about the PR filter it becomes less funny..
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 12:47:45 am by toast »
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #164 on: October 22, 2014, 12:45:35 am »
Why on earth would you announce a specific allocation yet. You just cratered pts and dns, while I've been telling people that they can hold their dns because it won't matter.

This is not the allocation I agreed to, I'd you recall...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

actually I am one of the victims since if I didn't read toast's statements I would for sure sold my dns before they tanked!