Proposed Allocation for Merger

[Ander]

Still unsure if it's 3% of 500M bts or 2.5B bts.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

3% of 2.5B bts.

(The other way, DNS would need to drop by more than 80% more which is clearly wrong).

[arhag]

This has made me confused about ownership rights in the DAC ecosystem. Why don't owners of DACs like VOTE and DNS get to vote on the merger proposal? Is it because the majority shareholders in the DACs have agreed to the proposal? I don't ask this because I'm against the proposal at all, I was just of the view previously that DACs had decentralised control.

I would love to see this kind of functionality in the toolkit one day. That would allow actual mergers between DACs to be negotiated.

For now, it doesn't really matter. The DACs' network effect are so small (and their network effect differences even smaller) that nearly all of their value comes from whether they have allocated or are capable of allocating enough funds to attract the key talent that make these DACs valuable in the first place. The DAC that the key talent is attracted to is the DAC that will be capable of killing off the rest before they can get a fighting chance. (By the way this is why BTSX with its much larger market cap has so much leverage in this "merger" regardless of what any prior social consensus may say. At least assuming it is willing to allow dilution, which now the shareholders have come to their senses to accept.) So, the "merger" might as well be negotiated by this key talent directly, especially since otherwise it would take considerable effort and time to build the technology and tools to allow the various "shareholders" to have a proper quantifiable voice on this matter and the ability to deny merger proposals (potentially at the risk of being killed off by the larger competition). But I do want this technology to eventually exist for every DAC, for the sake of decentralization.

Also, I am once again okay with bytemaster's proposed allocations for the merger. Again, I don't really care too much about a couple percent here and there. I just can't wait until this chaos is all behind us and we can go back to being united towards a common vision.

[Riverhead]

Still unsure if it's 3% of 500M bts or 2.5B bts.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[daidai]

Your decision makes too many people lose money,lose confidence and leave.

I3 start from PTS and AGS,now the product come out,you know it's the time to kill them.

you develop the toolkit by AGS fund,and PTS shareholders help to disseminate the DACs to new people.

I don't think it's a fair allocation .

[Rune]

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.

BM is a genius programmer and visionary.... But maybe not the greatest when it comes to when and what to post publicly on the forum

These kind of situations will be avoided in the future when we have matured as a community, and as a DAC.

Yes.  Unfortunately.  But that will mean you have to wait longer to get information to effect your investment decisions until the story has been polished and vetted.  This will increase the knowledge gap between insiders and outsiders.  Right now that knowledge gap is measured in minutes...

I'm not complaining, any small bumps we have now are completely irrelevant considering how insanely wealthy this will end up making us all. I don't think people complaining about percentages today will give a damn 12 months from now, they'll just be happy and proud that they were a part of bitshares before BTS even existed. Also, now that we have unified the DACs, I guess this kind of "conflict of interest" situation will never arise again, ever. Which is a huge advantage because then we can all just focus on working together.

[Stan]

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.

BM is a genius programmer and visionary.... But maybe not the greatest when it comes to when and what to post publicly on the forum

These kind of situations will be avoided in the future when we have matured as a community, and as a DAC.

Yes.  Unfortunately.  But that will mean you have to wait longer to get information to effect your investment decisions until the story has been polished and vetted.  This will increase the knowledge gap between insiders and outsiders.  Right now that knowledge gap is measured in minutes...

[starspirit]

This has made me confused about ownership rights in the DAC ecosystem. Why don't owners of DACs like VOTE and DNS get to vote on the merger proposal? Is it because the majority shareholders in the DACs have agreed to the proposal? I don't ask this because I'm against the proposal at all, I was just of the view previously that DACs had decentralised control.

[toast]

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.

Except that DNS is still up in the air. 

If we interpret it one way, based on 5 billion shares of DNS in existence, then DNS should drop by 50% from current levels (which are alreayd way down).

If we interpret it another way (only the shares of DNS given by PTS/AGS count), then DNS should be much higher than it is now?


We still need clarity on this.

It's the 4bn shares allocated to ags/pts and a little extra from delegates+backpay.

[Rune]

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.

BM is a genius programmer and visionary.... But maybe not the greatest when it comes to when and what to post publicly on the forum

These kind of situations will be avoided in the future when we have matured as a community, and as a DAC.

[Ander]

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.

Except that DNS is still up in the air. 

If we interpret it one way, based on 5 billion shares of DNS in existence, then DNS should drop by 50% from current levels (which are alreayd way down).

If we interpret it another way (only the shares of DNS given by PTS/AGS count), then DNS should be much higher than it is now?


We still need clarity on this.

[toast]

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?

The share count will be ((5bn total - 1bn dev fund) + (?? paid backpay + ??delegate subsidy up to snapshot)).
So I'd say 4-4.1 bn but I will go finish paying everyone back and then make a better estimate.

[liondani]

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!

[toast]

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..

[Ander]

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?

[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.

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.

...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
 

Yes.  You did just watch us evolve all this in dynamic real time.