Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 21956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #210 on: October 22, 2014, 05:50:23 am »
this is just a PROPOSAL

if i didn't just lost a big junk of my capital i would love.

so you a aquire a stock who is not trading on the stockexchange and it is worthless, because you can't sell it? Rediculus argument. I don't get DNS and VOTE partners and developers. You had a big leverage, because bytemaster said official he would develope for the toolkit who will benefit more VOTE than BTSX and you get such a bad allocation. Sry, guys DNS and VOTE initators you failed big time. you sold my money and give it for free to the BTSX community. It tell's me something. Never, ever invest something who bytemaster is not directly invovled.

Today your ecosystem died and no 3rd party will get 1 BTS from me ever, if bytemaster is not directly involved. This is not a merger, this is a hostile takeover.

but on the forum the yes sayer are in majority, so i assume they are only in BTSX and lost today nothing.

Offline bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #211 on: October 22, 2014, 06:07:54 am »
Hey bytemaster,

I think you are a brilliant guy and you are doing a hell of a job!
Also I really liked how you handled the whole situation and the way you argued on the 'panic mumble session'. We are all learning and nothing is set in stone.
I even started to like the I3 way of saying we don't care about we've said yesterday (no offense!). This isn't even meant ironically. If you are moving fast, sometimes you have to break things.
But if people have to loose more than 50% of their investment please let them understand why. I am a rational guy and I like a good argument, so just bear with me for a second.

First, you mention that the only fair way to value a DAC is to do so according to their market cap.

Later, you start to argue that 'market cap' isn't 'market cap' because there wasn't enough liquidity. 
Which was quite high if you consider that everyone was pulling their bids from the books because of that proposal announcement.
Also you were using wrong numbers (which don't even come close to the real ones) to back it up.

Further toast assured on the forum that the invested money will be preserved.
Just have a look at the markets after the announcement.

But what really kind of upsets me a bit is the way you are playing your arguments.

"BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS"

You announce an ecosystem, a new DAC goes live, people invest and then you tell them
Hey don't be upset we could have destroyed you anyway?

I really want to understand why you think this valuation/allocation is right. The only argument that you have given is the liquidity one, which I guess hardly is one. 

Am I against this merger? No I support it. I think the idea is brilliant.
It sounds like VOTE and BTSX are a perfect match.  And I agree, if you start merging you can just to it right and go full circle.

I know this is one particular view and you have to take different angles to look at it.
But the proposal and the way you are arguing show that you are not taking the DNS DAC perspective.
Hence, this argument.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #212 on: October 22, 2014, 06:21:22 am »
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 06:50:01 am by testz »
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline yuxuan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #213 on: October 22, 2014, 06:43:18 am »
why add  4 billmion.  who buy

Offline hashbit

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #214 on: October 22, 2014, 06:45:17 am »
I understand the rationale behind the merger and mostly support it.  However, I agree that 2 years is a long time in the crypto world. 

If my BTS is from different sources, will only the portion granted from PTS be locked?  How will that work?
PTS: Puk4cqPnGynvDGw9Mu1ubce1XPQmEw8B3c

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #215 on: October 22, 2014, 07:10:57 am »

I am more than fine with the allocation.
I have stated at least 7 times already - I do not believe a perfect allocation is possible... at all.

So, I will suggest a slight change [change that re-distributes only AGS] and keeps everything else untouched!

The logic for this re-adjustment is simple:

-pre Feb 28th AGS donors already received their share of BTSX and post Feb 28th did not.

So, instead of 7% to all AGS, I suggest:
-1% (or 2%) for pre Feb 28th AGS donors;
-6% (or 5%) for post Feb 28th AGS donors;

Should not be so hard to do.



Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #216 on: October 22, 2014, 07:23:04 am »

I am more than fine with the allocation.
I have stated at least 7 times already - I do not believe a perfect allocation is possible... at all.

So, I will suggest a slight change [change that re-distributes only AGS] and keeps everything else untouched!

The logic for this re-adjustment is simple:

-pre Feb 28th AGS donors already received their share of BTSX and post Feb 28th did not.

So, instead of 7% to all AGS, I suggest:
-1% (or 2%) for pre Feb 28th AGS donors;
-6% (or 5%) for post Feb 28th AGS donors;

Should not be so hard to do.

Anything less than 10% for post Feb 28 AGS donors is direct breach of the promise. Furthermore the fact that the promise was 10%PTS/10%AGS/80% DEV means that developers would already be funded and there would be no need for dilution. The new proposal changes all that and it is especially hurtful to anyone obtaining PTS/AGS after feb28. Overall it is beneficial to the system as the merge itself is a good thing. I think it benefits significantly any BTSX buyer. However the forced 2 year rule on PTS/DNS/VOTE is ridiculous. And the allocation is unfair to post feb 28 PTS/AGS buyers/donators.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #217 on: October 22, 2014, 07:24:52 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!


Well, you are not alone.  I bought DNS shares from the market after seeing toast's assurance.  I woke up in shock when I saw my DNS investment being decimated.  The sudden dive in price is because of a single post and over one night?  Wow!  This seems unreal to me.  Am I in the Matrix?   :o

The only consolation I find is that toast has no part in this.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #218 on: October 22, 2014, 07:28:14 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!


Well, you are not alone.  I bought DNS shares from the market after seeing toast's assurance.  I woke up in shock when I saw my DNS investment being decimated.  The sudden dive in price is because of a single post and over one night?  Wow!  This seems unreal to me.  Am I in the Matrix?   :o

The only consolation I find is that toast has no part in this.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135397#new

Offline CalabiYau

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #219 on: October 22, 2014, 07:35:01 am »
Early investor here with PTS, AGS, BTSX. My engagement is based on the papers I read from bytemaster and some trust in the people behind I3. I have great respect for the work this team - with the support of a living community - has achieved so far.
 
I see the ideas behind this merger, but I have some problems and lack of time to analyze all the (known) facts in this complex matter. I have to trust the insiders regarding the direction this mothership has to steer. Therefore I support the merger.   

Vesting periods over crypto-eternal times for PTS are a fundamental change in the nature of this asset - I really can not agree with this proposal. Selling them today to express this stance is no option, to crash the market is not in the best interest of PTS holders.

Please reconsider solutions to keep PTS liquid. Also the dilution topic is very critical, if there is some impression that creating shares are the way to solve future problems the existing world of finance seems dangerously close.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 07:41:06 am by CalabiYau »

Offline svk

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #220 on: October 22, 2014, 07:45:28 am »
I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.

This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.

Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.

The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.

Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #221 on: October 22, 2014, 07:51:30 am »
I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.

This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.

Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.

The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.

Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..

You may be reacting on incomplete informatiom. Please wait until this is clarified:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396

Offline svk

Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #222 on: October 22, 2014, 08:01:03 am »
I'm glad I managed to sell 60% of my DNS that I bought on BTER before the flash crash, so at worst I'll only lose a couple hundred dollars.

This whole process leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth though, although I see the need to react once the cat was out of the bag. I'm surprised to see noone mentioning the absurd fact that VOTE gets the same allocation as DNS even though VOTE isn't even live yet while DNS has been trading on Tue exchanges for a while now.

Quite a lot of people will be taking serious losses due to this. If you want to reward Adam Earnest just give him a 1% stake straight out, and give the remaining 2% to DNS. So my counterproposal is 80% BTSX, 7% AGS/PTS, 5% DNS and 1% Adam Earnest.

The vesting period for DNS and PTS is also completely unreasonable. They are already getting shafted, and now they get doubly shafted from an insanely long and punishing vesting period. At least reduce it to 1 year and increase the initial haircut for divesting.

Disclaimer: I'm 95+% invested in BTSX, but this doesn't feel right to me..

You may be reacting on incomplete informatiom. Please wait until this is clarified:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10317.msg135396#msg135396
Toast already commented on this though, saying it's about 20% that's getting removed, so we're still dealing with 4 billion DNS.

Guess we'll have to wait till they wake up for final confirmation.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline kbrom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #223 on: October 22, 2014, 08:16:54 am »
2 years
too long time~

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #224 on: October 22, 2014, 08:28:46 am »
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. 

Please, for the love of God, realize this is wrong on so many levels.

If someone sells the vested 25% after 6 months, they should still be able to sell the other 75% when they vest.

Just make it gradually vest 1% per week, regardless of what is sold. How hard is that?!?

You just have to check the time stamp v.s. the original balance to see how much balance is currently available.