Will 3rd Party DACs honor PTS/AGS in the future?

[wallace]

As a PTS&AGS holder, I respect what 3I doing for the BTSX and totally agree with this proposal of this merger.

but I have a big concern about the future 3rd Party DAC, we need to keep the social consensus - at least 10% to AGSer and 10% PTSer. currently I didn't see any official response about this.

[emski]

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That is the real deal! It is breached by III!

[sudo]

Don't forget the beginner's mind

https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Social Consensus Software License - Version 1.0 - August 10, 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 Invictus Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in the source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following condititons are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3.Neither the name of Invictus Innovations, Inc nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4.The genesis block of any blockchain must allocate 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allocated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares PTS proportional to the percentage of total BitShares PTS held. Additionally 10% of the total lifetime shares ever allcoated by the blockchain to the holders of BitShares AGS must be allocated in the genesis block.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[emski]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

The proposed allocation does not meet the social consensus. Factoring in DNS and VOTE, PTS and AGS would each get

7% + (30%*3%) + (40%*3%) = 9.1%

which is less than 10%, unless I'm missing something. Stan, the allocation really should be made right if Bitshares wants to be able to claim that the social consensus would be met.

Yes.. you are missing that 10% of *future*... they are also getting 9.1% of *PAST*... and most would argue that *PAST* >> *FUTURE* and that BTSX is far more profitable and had greater potential than the other DACs.

@Bytemaster the 9.1% of past&future is OK. What is wrong with that is the promise to AGS/PTS. They were promised that developers of the DACs will have 80%. Developers will use this for developing and promoting. This will make dilution of the original 10% unlikely. Now these 80% are given to other shareholders. AND the dilution is inevitable. And THIS is the breach in promise.

[bennyliaa]

Anybody could explain whether it break the social consensus or not after Merge ? 

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

sorry  what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%


Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

[Rune]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10344.0

Everyone who is whining read this, and stop. It's embarrassing.

BM built DPOS, BTSX, the concept of DACs, market pegged assets. He's a genius and you're lucky enough to be an early adopter of his product. STOP COMPLAINING.

[bytemaster]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

The proposed allocation does not meet the social consensus. Factoring in DNS and VOTE, PTS and AGS would each get

7% + (30%*3%) + (40%*3%) = 9.1%

which is less than 10%, unless I'm missing something. Stan, the allocation really should be made right if Bitshares wants to be able to claim that the social consensus would be met.

Yes.. you are missing that 10% of *future*... they are also getting 9.1% of *PAST*... and most would argue that *PAST* >> *FUTURE* and that BTSX is far more profitable and had greater potential than the other DACs.

Also the Dev fund from DNS is being removed from DNS so it more than 9.1%

[bytemaster]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

The proposed allocation does not meet the social consensus. Factoring in DNS and VOTE, PTS and AGS would each get

7% + (30%*3%) + (40%*3%) = 9.1%

which is less than 10%, unless I'm missing something. Stan, the allocation really should be made right if Bitshares wants to be able to claim that the social consensus would be met.

Yes.. you are missing that 10% of *future*... they are also getting 9.1% of *PAST*... and most would argue that *PAST* >> *FUTURE* and that BTSX is far more profitable and had greater potential than the other DACs.

[pendragon3]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

The proposed allocation does not meet the social consensus. Factoring in DNS and VOTE, PTS and AGS would each get

7% + (30%*3%) + (40%*3%) = 9.1%

which is less than 10%, unless I'm missing something. Stan, the allocation really should be made right if Bitshares wants to be able to claim that the social consensus would be met.

[sudo]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

sorry  what i mean is 3rd Party DACs in the future.

according  BM's reply, for example  3rd DACs  honor new BTSX 20%  instead of  AGS&PTS
then  AGS before feb.28 get 20%*49.4%=9.88%
 AGS after feb.28 get 20%*9.4%=1.88%  much less than 10%

Code: [Select]

new BTSX     btsx 80% ags7% pts7% dns3% vote3%
so AGS before feb.28 get =80%*50%(btsx)+7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=49.4%

AGS after feb.28 get =7%*100%(ags)+3%*50%(dns)+3%*30%(vote)=9.4%


Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

[xeroc]

But instead of softening people up, you (and by you, I mean BM) created a PR nightmare shitstorm by announcing an allocation that superficially violates the social consensus, and now before most people have a chance to react, the price of DNS is on the floor and everybody's pissed because they were deluded by an inflated market price. Did you honestly believe that was the best way to do it?

I tend to agree here ...

BM proposed to have a 'verbal' hangout session announce before publishing proposals again .. so that questions can be answered until everything is clear .. and then the proposal can be made public .. however... the issue then is ... people are rushing into the hangouts wanting the "latest" insider information to dump/dump the price before everyone else had the chance ...

I honestly prefere having these proposals published right away .. however .. BM should consider consulting toast before! He has a better "feeling" for those proposals ...  IMHO

[biophil]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

Look, Stan, I mean this in the best way possible, but your PR is so bad. I mean just unbelievably awful. You're going to shrug my comment off with something weird and vaguely witty like you always do, but when will you guys realize that what is obvious to you isn't immediately obvious to everybody else?

I finally understand why this counts as honoring the social consensus. What I don't understand is why you think people will accept it so easily, especially since when BM proposed the allocation, he didn't even try to explain it until like 10 pages in? In investors' view, they have a stake in the DNS DAC. Now, if you soften them up ahead of time, they would see that the DNS DAC isn't a DAC, it's just a naked featureless DPOS chain derived almost entirely from AGS/PTS. That is, DNS is AGS/PTS. Looked at like that, it's obvious that 240 satoshi was an over-inflated price.

But instead of softening people up, you (and by you, I mean BM) created a PR nightmare shitstorm by announcing an allocation that superficially violates the social consensus, and now before most people have a chance to react, the price of DNS is on the floor and everybody's pissed because they were deluded by an inflated market price. Did you honestly believe that was the best way to do it?

[Stan]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

When you consider DNS and VOTE as part of the post-Feb 28th package then you do have 10%.
And they get a pre 28th share in BTSX as also.

So this actually exceeds the social consensus in that sense. 
Part of the balancing act needed to bring all parties together.
Not easy.   
 

[sudo]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Third party should still honor the final snapshot for PTS&AGS at least 10% each
just like  Licensing fees  for  bitshares toolkit

if  honor  bts,AGS before 2.28 Benefit more more more more than  anything else

[sudo]

how dare  to  broke the  social consensus for PTS/AGS 10% each??

[Empirical1.1]

I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

Good luck with the 'we may fork you' idea.   chuckle.

Well I understand these changes could alienate some people.

I sold a bit of my BTSX partly in protest & on principal because I felt I was buying into a BTSX with no dilution and people like BM's full attention on the base development side but that the rules had been changed on me. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10240.msg134442#msg134442

However it's the same old awesome BM & crew and they're just doing their job of fulfilling their grand vision and ultimately our interest. I'm sure he would have not wanted to suggest DNS & Vote get less than X% or PTS+AGS<20% or dilute a hard cap like BTSX by 20%. There was an option for him to go and pursue the Super DAC with dilution via Vote, while fulfilling his minimum obligations to the rest of the ecosystem. The majority overwhelmingly wanted a merger instead. In fact the vision for 1 BitShares is pretty great imo. Of course some won't want it & everyone will be compromising a lot & each individual group will feel like they're the ones compromising the most, this is human nature. I'm sorry it's not exactly the same as you thought it was in the beginning and PTS didn't get the equity you're sure they deserve. I hope we don't lose your positive contribution. I hope we don't lose too many non dilutionists. I hope we don't lose the DNS'ers. 90% of me is still here. I'm really proud to be a part of this community and BitShares.

[ripplexiaoshan]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

So if I use this system and select a valued subset of BTS and give it to my DAC, then that means social consensus is intact ?

I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

3I may not have the ability to carry out "we may fork you", especially when several 3rd party DACs are released at the same time.  Take one case as an example, I develop one DAC, which honor PTS/AGS 20% and BTC 80%, and then it turns out to be very very popular thus has more users than BTS users. What will happen next? Even 3i spend some time to fork it, the market won't recognize it.
Correct me if I am wrong.

To this extent, 3rd party DAC may honor PTS/AGS instead of BTS.

[gamey]

I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

Good luck with the 'we may fork you' idea.   chuckle.

[Empirical1.1]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

So if I use this system and select a valued subset of BTS and give it to my DAC, then that means social consensus is intact ?

I think social consensus for PTS/AGS was 20% or we may fork you, whereas I think BTS will fork any feature from a competitor that adds value to BTS regardless of equity BTS is given. Not sure though.

[gamey]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

So if I use this system and select a valued subset of BTS and give it to my DAC, then that means social consensus is intact ?

[Empirical1.1]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

With Vote DAC now to be included on BTS, third parties can honour unique individuals. So you can sharedrop equally to 100 000 unique people based on criteria that most suit your DAC. It's really quite amazing when you think of the implications. Only young men 26-34 who describe themselves as Libertarian based in South America who are already owners of DACs such as... Etc. Being able to target unique individuals even if they want to remain private but disclose info by consent makes my AGS pretty unnatractive imo.

[emski]

I was wondering if it is possible for a 3rd party developer to honor AGS and PTS without III's stake ?

[bobmaloney]

The PTS/AGS will still carry value - they represent early adopters with likely political and philosophical similarities - and if BTS ends up reaching escape velocity, they will also represent relatively wealthy investors.

I can imagine more than a few projects that would want to build support within a wealthy and connected group of anarchist or at least libertarian-leaning individuals.

While honoring BTS will satisfy the requirement to ensure support of the BTS developers and community, setting an additional amount aside for PTS/AGS holders may be an additional incentive that can realize more benefit than cost - depending upon project and goal.

[gamey]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

Seriously?  BTS owners see other DACs as competition.  There would be little value in sharedropping to BTS as those people have no specific interest in these things.  You've completely broken the value of sharedropping to a PTS like entity by mixing up the demographcs.  PTS/AGS were people whom specifically wanted new DACs.  BTS = 80% people who will have random views, 20% who are interested in new DACS.   AGS/PTS = people 100% interested in new DACs.

The keys will always exist for those who keep their wallets. 

If I was a third party dev and I wanted to play nice I'd give to BTS and make it vested over 2 years... Or I would find a demographic that would show my DAC support.

... but we'll let people figure this out as it all unravels down whatever path we're taking...

[bytemaster]

Think as a 3rd party developer....

You would want to honor BTS... or nothing.... *unless* you think we have done something unfair to the extent that you can out compete us.

[blahblah7up]

They will honour BTS (BTSX). The whole concept has been simplified. Hallelujah!

I'm not so sure.  Depending on how wide-spread BTS becomes (in terms of total holders), that would be more like share dropping and the crypto space hasn't seen much of that.  On the contrary, we already have seen some new DACs honor PTS/AGS.  For one it was always to be encouraged by I3.  That probably won't be the case anymore.  I don't know.

But it was supposed to be an elite group of users who might be in a position to lend growth to the new DAC (in whatever way shape or form.)  That could still apply.  I'm just curious.

[Method-X]

They will honour BTS (BTSX). The whole concept has been simplified. Hallelujah!

[Ander]

I think they should honor 20% of the new BTS.

[blahblah7up]

I have no idea.  Just curious what people think.