Author Topic: Proposed Allocation for Merger  (Read 41710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #225 on: October 22, 2014, 08:51:23 am »
In my opinion, the part for PTS and DNS should be frozen, because they are liquid. For AGS, no problem.

pts and dns should be frozen!
I meant "Should not be frozen", my mistake...
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline inarizushi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #226 on: October 22, 2014, 08:54:10 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.

 +5%

New poll ? I guess we can have >80% agreement on that...
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitcoinerS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #227 on: October 22, 2014, 09:17:42 am »

PTS should be given no lockout period to be fair.

 +5%
>>> approve bitcoiners

Offline zonda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #228 on: October 22, 2014, 09:52:02 am »
So looking at the market and at the price of PTS and BTSX, this deal is the best for BTSX holders, right?

Also will the total supply of newly created BTS be increased and move from 2B?

Thanks

Offline zonda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #229 on: October 22, 2014, 09:55:00 am »
Also what does vesting period means? Does that mean if I sell my BTSX stake in a future I get only a part of it, or is this only for PTS, AGS?

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #230 on: October 22, 2014, 10:15:52 am »
I think the lock out is to keep the devs that gain a large share offer from liquidating. From this sense BM negotiated a great deal for us. Maybe it should only be applied to those people that were tied in for good reason?

Saying that its kind of hard to change anything now, the market is pricing in the proposal and changing it again is going to upset a whole new group of people.

As a disclaimer - I own assets from all DAC's, PTS and AGS. I have added to my positions all the way but i have never sold anything.

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #231 on: October 22, 2014, 10:37:42 am »
I support merger and trust bytemaster that he has done his maths honestly as possible given the circumstances. 
Market seems to like the Merger Coinmarketcap +21.16% up at the time of writing   :)   +5%
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 10:41:15 am by aloha »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #232 on: October 22, 2014, 10:46:13 am »
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. 

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

:)

The same way it is not possible to buy every share at the market price. DNS had a healthy volume relative to it's market cap. You guys are making a big mistake that will result in tons of bad PR. DNS will come in history as a pump & dump coin and this will reflect on a BTS price. Besides, you will not only lose some people, you will gain enemies.

But whatever, i support merger, just strongly do not agree with the allocation.

PS: i will lose like $20 from bad allocation of DNS. I'm just very concerned about future BTS price and other people losses  ???

Who cares about market price? AGS certainly not.
What matters is the promise. It is not fulfilled. This is what matters. Lack of integrity IS a big deal. I believe merge is a positive step. I think that bitshares will still grow despite the numbers in the merge. However this forced single-handed breach of social contract is failure to keep the promise. This alone casts a shadow on the III , BM and Stan's reputation. If you only consider the facts they didn't keep their promise about 10% at least for post feb28 contributors. Pre feb28 contributors are unaffected. Liquidity of PTS/DNS/VOTE is so outrageous that I dont want to even discuss it.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 10:47:47 am by emski »

Offline linyibo010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #233 on: October 22, 2014, 11:33:14 am »
Shit!
So bad proposed!
We(AGSer+PTSer) want not BTSX,not trading liquidity, We want 10% Equity of all the third DAC forever.

Offline blahblah7up

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #234 on: October 22, 2014, 11:37:51 am »
And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D

This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.

First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity.  That's why they bought AGS.  It was a long term investment to start with.  Otherwise they could have bought PTS.  I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity.  It's more of a liability now.  They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc.  AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.

Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid.  Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid.  Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future.  With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #235 on: October 22, 2014, 11:44:02 am »
And AGS has 0 liquidity. :D

This has been said over and over, also as an accusation to the effect that AGS is being gifted liquidity.

First of all, AGS holders never wanted quick liquidity.  That's why they bought AGS.  It was a long term investment to start with.  Otherwise they could have bought PTS.  I don't think AGS holders are thanking their lucky stars now that they have liquidity.  It's more of a liability now.  They will have to watch the markets and manage it, be tempted to sell it, etc.  AGS holders probably aren't happy with this sudden liquidity.

Another point is that that AGS was always intended to end up effectively liquid.  Every time a new DAC came out it was becoming more liquid.  Also based on the fact that all along the idea was to build foundation-industry DACs which would then be "snapshoted" in the the future.  With time, AGS was alway supposed to be tending toward complete liquidity.
That is the reason I didn't mention AGS at all.

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #236 on: October 22, 2014, 12:09:15 pm »
Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #237 on: October 22, 2014, 12:16:36 pm »
Should PTS/AGS really get 7%?
PTS/AGS was snapshotted for the initial distribution of BTSX, hence I think they shouldn't get a 1:1 merger.
pre feb28 got snapshotted.
The main issue is with post feb28 AGS/PTS.

Offline bennyliaa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #238 on: October 22, 2014, 12:18:19 pm »
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.

:)

Hi, Stan, I realize that merge the DACs into one is a good proposal.
But one thing I have more concern is that the proposal for the AGS before 2.28 againest after 2.28.
May be we can seperate them for allocating the stock of the DACs developed by Core team.
Would you like to spend some time on calculating the accurate percentage of themfor getting the bts&Other DACs allocation result, including the part before proposal and after proposal.
I think this should help us more understanding the one's feeling under this proposal who donate AGS after 2.28.

Merge DACs into one surly is a good thing for all of us, but I think the proposal need to base on more accurate calculating result/number and it is better post a profit table form here.
Looking forward to your replay. +5% +5% +5%

My Personal BTS Account: stephen

Offline flydragon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Allocation for Merger
« Reply #239 on: October 22, 2014, 12:25:13 pm »
i wil say it again - this is not a merger.

all the DNS buyers on BTER got screwed big time. only BTSX are cared, but we only do it because bytemaster was on the move to VOTE. sorry i don't buy it. i just lost a big junk of my invested money without need. i invested in AGS because i liked the competing DACs. My bad, that most of my money was invested after the BTSX snapshot. So my portion in BTSX was small. I bought a couple of BTSX on BTER.

So i was just happy to see my taken risk gotten be rewarded with the coming DACs DNS and Vote , Music as well. Play will come and now we "vote" to merge. But my stakes has no votes. i am delitued the most.

- my after the BTSX AGS snapshot got not much
- my DNS are valued nothing
- my VOTE are valued nothing

question is why we are doing this? just to simplify anything? sorry i don't buy it. the whole merger is in big favor of all the supporters before the BTSX snapshot.

why not just throw BTSX away take a fair AGS Snapshot and allocte PTS in some way?

i can tell, because it will upset the big fish who are invested before the BTSX snapshot and will get in the new BTS chain less then now.

don't call it a merger - it is not!

every promise was broken.

i am in favor of the idea, but how the AGS/PTS + DNS + VOTES are treated is shameful.

on this emerging mumble session bytemaster said "no, only AGS and PTS will be merged with BTSX" just a couple hours BTSX is thucking everything in.

sry, that i am upset, but if you "merge" someone has to lose and that's me.

I understand how you feel.  There are no easy answers, but the best I have for you is this:  BTSX could have evolved without giving DNS anything and then competed with DNS.    No merger, no buy out, just competition in a free market.   Would that have been breaking any promises?   Would you have lost more or less money as a result?

All the promotion made by 3i made many people believe that bts will focus on the distributed market & monetary stuff, DNS will do keyid/domain stuff and there will be no DNS2. 
This plan makes me fill betrayed.

And I also lost a lot of money in DNS, bought quite a lot just few days ago, and was now fucked!