Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 49359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Its not priced in seems to me like a buying opportunity.

Market cap should be $75M this week.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.

Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...
Its not priced in seems to me like a buying opportunity.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline fuzzy

if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.

Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...

Have you come up with a proposal of your own yet?  Can you link me to it?  I'm interested to hear your opinion...not just on PTS/AGS, but a detailed plan. 

Stuff gets dirty sometimes in business...so I understand the frustration.  I'm simply trying to assess what you are bringing to the table right now.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.

Based on the price it looks like the market has realized something quite different...

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
if pts and dns rises to acceptable levels it may offer premium so that 2 years is paid for by an acceptable premium.. i think this will start to get priced into pts and dns once market realizes.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline networker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
BM, since your this propose released yesterday.

my DNS crashed 40% of market cap
my Pts price is crashing to historical new low.
my BTX is not benefit much.

40% of price crash is NOT normal which means your propose is unfair. 
PTS, AGS and DNS become shit coin within last 24 hours.  hope you can do something responsable to protect our investment.
[/quote
Agree.

BM.
You hurt all of the investor of DNS and PTS, nobody will following your BTS after this plan except someone who hold a lot of BTS

Offline springlh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
I still do not understand why vesting apply for DNS and VOTE ?? It should be only for AGS/PTS.

Currently, DNS and VOTE are DAC similar to BTSX (only difference in market cap) so why BTSX can liquid and not DNS and VOTE ??

I think vesting should not apply to PTS or DNS since they were already liquid.

Vesting for VOTE and AGS is fine because they were not already liquid.
This is the only reasonable suggestion in this whole unreasonable thread.  The 2 years vesting period makes the proposal of so called "merger" looks like a "swallow" to me ....
PTS: Pu3UNPm2CbkZw8s7zreArHm472x8F3uWXj
新浪微博 - http://weibo.com/philipli

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
In my opinion, the part for PTS and DNS should not be frozen, because they are liquid. For AGS, no problem.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 08:50:14 am by ripplexiaoshan »
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
BM, since your this propose released yesterday.

my DNS crashed 40% of market cap
my Pts price is crashing to historical new low.
my BTX is not benefit much.

40% of price crash is NOT normal which means your propose is unfair. 
PTS, AGS and DNS become shit coin within last 24 hours.  hope you can do something responsable to protect our investment.

Wow !!!!

Which particular investment of yours is in a great danger?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Riverhead

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

This is a much more friendly scheme that accomplishes the same thing.

Offline neil54321

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
BM, since your this propose released yesterday.

my DNS crashed 40% of market cap
my Pts price is crashing to historical new low.
my BTX is not benefit much.

40% of price crash is NOT normal which means your propose is unfair. 
PTS, AGS and DNS become shit coin within last 24 hours.  hope you can do something responsable to protect our investment.


Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
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

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

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


It took me a while to get this quotes in order [thanks bitshrestalk.org]

I do not know if I have shared that I am a BIG fan of toast.... I do not know if I ever did that, other than declaring one of his post 'The funniest thing ever posted on this forum'.

But I am, a great fan of his!

« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 04:24:41 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Repeating this in threads where the same question keeps coming up:

Bytemaster explained his analysis in today's recorded mumble session.  As usual, it went far deeper than superficial numbers like "market value".

Here's a sample:  True value assessment must include an estimate of liquidity.  It is not possible right now to sell every share at the market price.  Not even close.  So you can't give a DAC credit for its full market cap unless there is truly that much demand for every share. 

Another example:  A fully efficient market with all information available to it would be expected to correctly appraise the value of a share.  But things are happening too fast and the more you know and have assimilated the implications of all the facts the more accurate will be your assessment of the true value.  Bytemaster is the closest thing we have to a fully informed appraiser.

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

:)

At the very least, I think DNS an PTS shouldn't be subject to lockout.

(I am 100% BTSX now, none of the others, so it doesnt matter to me, I'm just trying to get everyone a fair deal).

Only in Bizarro World does it make sense to gift liquidity to an IL-liquid asset with no discount, and in the same stroke of genius make the already punished investors of PTS IL-liquid. Totally rational, right guys... right?

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile

So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

 :)

The valuation that DNS was trading at 3 x TMV may be accurate but I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the merger. There are 5bn DNS shares of which 3.6Bn are unclaimed. Does unclaimed mean no vote?

I'm not so much concerned about the efficacy of this merger but of the sovereignty of DACs in general. How big does a DAC need to be before it isn't subject to the consensus of a few developers? While BM, Stan, Toast, et al are good actors that may not always be the case.

It's more about stability than size, I think.  This whole discussion is about what network these particular devs will be working on and supporting.  Anyone who wanted to could continue operating the existing networks using the existing rules and ignore what the devs are doing, but I think the devs have enough community support that their branch will thrive and the others will die.  If the devs were not good actors, they wouldn't have that support.

Offline Riverhead


So before you criticize his analysis, be sure you have thought things through at least that deeply.

 :)

The valuation that DNS was trading at 3 x TMV may be accurate but I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the merger. There are 5bn DNS shares of which 3.6Bn are unclaimed. Does unclaimed mean no vote?

I'm not so much concerned about the efficacy of this merger but of the sovereignty of DACs in general. How big does a DAC need to be before it isn't subject to the consensus of a few developers? While BM, Stan, Toast, et al are good actors that may not always be the case.