Proposed Allocation for Merger

[xeroc]

how to understand devshares chain, the purpose of this chain is to fix bug before luanch to formal. or other ?  I have some understanding , i dont konw if it is right ?
it is a parallel chain with BTS,  it start from a snapshot of BTS, and run togather with BTS chain , but will end after the new after merge in BTS chain , delegate not only prodece bts block, but produce devshares block also. the two chains are alone,  every btser can test feather on devshares chain.   can the client have warn if tester want to use test chain.

- devshares will be a parallel chain (from what I know -- makes totally sense)
- not sure if initial distribution will be BTS distribution ... but would also make sense to mee
- the purpose indeed is to test and fix .. not only bugs but also new features and business
- once the DevShares is stable it will be integrated as a potential hard fork into BTS - which means, stakeholders will have to AGREE (by majority) to this new set of features/bugfixes/business
- it will probably be a new set of delegates! so that the delegates on the main chain can focus on a stable main network! (would make sense to me)
- i think it will be probably difficult to run into the testnet "by accident" .. it's difficult in btc too .. currently, we have all pubkeys with a prefix of "BTSX" and that will probably stay that way (not sure though) -- the current testnet uses "XTS" as prefix and main token ..

[BTSdac]

We will be creating a DevShares chain that will have all experimental updates and have regular release schedules with new "hard fork" features once every 3 months and eventually every 6 months.   Details on the DevShares are still unclear.   DevShares will hard fork frequently and not be suitable for accumulation of capital.. it may have down time, be hacked, etc... but we will maintain it as a testing ground for all features and for 3rd party developers.   Unlike Bitcoin Testnet, DevShares are designed to have economic value of their own and the chain will not "reset ownership".   It will therefore also support BitUSD.. but far less liquid.

how to understand devshares chain, the purpose of this chain is to fix bug before luanch to formal. or other ?  I have some understanding , i dont konw if it is right ?
it is a parallel chain with BTS,  it start from a snapshot of BTS, and run togather with BTS chain , but will end after the new after merge in BTS chain , delegate not only prodece bts block, but produce devshares block also. the two chains are alone,  every btser can test feather on devshares chain.   can the client have warn if tester want to use test chain.

[cryptillionaire]

Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!

What about future DACs? AGS was to raise funds for future DACs but in an ill-liquid fashion thus you recieved a premium. By merging into BTS then AGS will be given future allocation to all DACs in a liquid form.. something that is NEW in the contract for AGS... and one that may have had everyone completely get into AGS knowing this before hand... I held my PTS knowing that more  DACs would come along and it would be more valuable as the platform becomes more valuable...

Thus if I had known that AGS would become liquid before Bitshares took off I would have converted all my PTS to AGS which I didn't do knowingly.

According to : http://wiki.bitshares.org/images/e/e7/Distribution_snapshots.jpg

Seems like the only difference is that AGS was not liquid thus offered at a premium to PTS. So I would imagine over time as new interesting DACs were released that PTS would rise to a higher valuation than the average AGS price was over time because the desire to get into a DAC that is successful in a successful environment would make money.

At the very least if this were to happen I would like to see the PTS allocation(based on market price of today) equivalent to the average price of AGS.. thus not a 50/50 split but based on the average price... so if PTS was half of the price of AGS then it should be 75% PTS / 25% AGS... because markets work in cycles and as soon as bitshares took off the desire to get into future dacs would rise thus causing more demand for PTS.

Yeah, I agree with 75% PTS and 25% AGS. I don't agree with giving DNS/VOTE as much as people have been suggesting - they weren't even fully functioning DACS.

[jsidhu]

Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!

What about future DACs? AGS was to raise funds for future DACs but in an ill-liquid fashion thus you recieved a premium. By merging into BTS then AGS will be given future allocation to all DACs in a liquid form.. something that is NEW in the contract for AGS... and one that may have had everyone completely get into AGS knowing this before hand... I held my PTS knowing that more  DACs would come along and it would be more valuable as the platform becomes more valuable...

Thus if I had known that AGS would become liquid before Bitshares took off I would have converted all my PTS to AGS which I didn't do knowingly.

According to : http://wiki.bitshares.org/images/e/e7/Distribution_snapshots.jpg

Seems like the only difference is that AGS was not liquid thus offered at a premium to PTS. So I would imagine over time as new interesting DACs were released that PTS would rise to a higher valuation than the average AGS price was over time because the desire to get into a DAC that is successful in a successful environment would make money.

At the very least if this were to happen I would like to see the PTS allocation(based on market price of today) equivalent to the average price of AGS.. thus not a 50/50 split but based on the average price... so if PTS was half of the price of AGS then it should be 75% PTS / 25% AGS... because markets work in cycles and as soon as bitshares took off the desire to get into future dacs would rise thus causing more demand for PTS.

[Bitty]

Do I have to claim my unclaimed DNS (through PTS) first in order to get more BTS?
Or will this make to difference in the total BTS I will receive?

[cryptillionaire]

Wait.. yeah.. AGS was actually donations to the DAC creators.. making it liquid now would be like creating new AGS funds out of thin air.. I'd prefer if AGS was just wiped out - AGS holders have already been given shares in BTSX/DNS/VOTE/MUSIC/LOTTO - why should they now be given their funds back?!

[santaclause102]

It is not a "merger"... it is a air drop.  We did not buy shares in DNS or PTS...

The only thing we did is "merge" the interests of all parties into the success of BTSX.

Ok. DNS + VOTE + BTSX is a merger and PTS/AGS -> BTS would also be a merger if I3 only supports chains/projects which honor BTS (20%) instead of PTS/AGS 10/10 %. Does that make sense? (not a merger of companies but more a merger of ledgers in the case of AGS/PTS -> BTS)
Is that the plan that you recommend honoring BTS instead of AGS/PTS?

[Ggozzo]

It is not a "merger"... it is a air drop.  We did not buy shares in DNS or PTS...

The only thing we did is "merge" the interests of all parties into the success of BTSX.

You should change the title of this thread then because it certainly implies merger.

[bytemaster]

It is not a "merger"... it is a air drop.  We did not buy shares in DNS or PTS...

The only thing we did is "merge" the interests of all parties into the success of BTSX.

[santaclause102]

That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?

No, it is not likely that anyone would be jailed.  It is a civil matter not criminal as far as I understand.   

Worst case SEC calls AGS, PTS, and/or BTS a security and our arguments to the contrary are rejected and we are in the same boat as SDICE.   That boat has a fine of $50K per security and SDICE raised more money than we did.   

Lets not get all worried here.

Was there a consulting with lawyers regarding all the implications of the merger? Or should that happen is it did not yet?

[bytemaster]

That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?

No, it is not likely that anyone would be jailed.  It is a civil matter not criminal as far as I understand.   

Worst case SEC calls AGS, PTS, and/or BTS a security and our arguments to the contrary are rejected and we are in the same boat as SDICE.   That boat has a fine of $50K per security and SDICE raised more money than we did.   

Lets not get all worried here.

[Xeldal]

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

  Yes, and that is exactly what i said. 

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest.

Who is saying this? 

It is trivially easy to jump this 'technical hurdle' of AGS lock-in , but no one was willing to do it.  And without I3's sanction it would likely be unrecognized.

[xeroc]

there always was a LEGAL issue for I3 to make it liquid ..

that's also way they are using the term GIFT now .. they are "legally" not really making AGS liquid .. IMHO

[emski]

That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).

Could everyone at III be jailed because of making AGS liquid ? There are plenty of signs that III are issuing digital tokens for monetary "donations". Even if the issuer is DACSUnlimited isn't there enough information for authorities to put everyone in the arrest for a while ?

[alphaBar]

That's correct.  Making AGS liquid has been talked about many times, almost from the beginning.

I had/have pre/post AGS/PTS.  I was well aware of AGS being around 2.6 to 3.3 times the better deal.  I was also aware that AGS would eventually be made liquid.  It was just a matter of time.  I believe some were even trying to trade them back then(though I don't know how, without great trust).  Knowing all this I still purchased PTS.  It was my decision, no one forced my hand. 

All the information was available.  I can't blame anyone for me not optimizing my investments for an unknown future.  There was certainly no guarantee that any of this was going to work.  If it had all fallen apart, or other opportunities came up, PTS was the place to be and that is why I put my money there.

It was the conservative bet and I've been compensated conservatively.

Your comments are refuted by simple common sense. You say that there were "discussions" and by that you mean that people were asking questions like "how can I transfer my AGS to another person?" The answer was always the same - you cannot do so without gaining that person's trust.

Let me clear this up once and for all - there was never a "technical problem" or hurdle to adding liquidity to AGS. It is very obvious that AGS could have been designed as a standalone blockchain where your donations would earn you a sharedrop in that chain. It was deliberately designed to NOT be on a liquid chain. Partly because there would be no differentiating factor between PTS and AGS and partly to protect Invictus from regulatory problems that arise when you "issue shares" vs "accepting donations".

Anyone making the argument that "we always intended to make AGS liquid" is either new and misinformed or just completely making up facts to serve their own biased interest. Thankfully you don't need to dig up old posts to understand that the design of "locking" AGS in the social contract was deliberate and was never up for debate from I3 (aside from a couple of users "asking" for it).