Author Topic: Now is the perfect time to implement sweeping transparency measures.  (Read 6466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I am in favor of eliminating all legal entities owned by multiple individuals.
I am in favor of no corporations (creation of the state).

So as soon as possible I hope to switch over to individuals.


That said, what is the difference between a "super coder" which manages and outsources 100 people but takes 100% responsibility and 100 average coders hired directly.   It is only a question of productivity and cost.   Do you trust the super coder to use what ever means necessary (including delegation and hiring help?) 

So lets set the principle that no "shared ownership legal entity"....

I don't expect a super coder who specializes in coding to also specialize in trust management, as they are two completely unrelated skills.  This is my reasoning behind why I'd vote against it at least. I'd much rather see the super coder running his team "on-blockchain" so to say, and have the entire managerial structure completely transparent via delegate slates, so potential bad apples can be discovered and removed.

Offline bytemaster

I am in favor of eliminating all legal entities owned by multiple individuals.
I am in favor of no corporations (creation of the state).

So as soon as possible I hope to switch over to individuals.


That said, what is the difference between a "super coder" which manages and outsources 100 people but takes 100% responsibility and 100 average coders hired directly.   It is only a question of productivity and cost.   Do you trust the super coder to use what ever means necessary (including delegation and hiring help?) 

So lets set the principle that no "shared ownership legal entity"....
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
The answer to the delegate question is simply a question of what is most profitable. I think shareholders will eventually strongly prefer to have total transparency and control over every employee (to avoid gatekeepers).

Once we are in the situations where we have 101 delegates on board who are engaged in profitable work, and someone like vbuterin signs up to join the organization, I imagine stakeholders will vote to increase the number of delegates rather than throwing out an incumbent delegate or having vbuterin working as a subemployee of a middleman delegate.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
As guess this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: should the number of delegates be variable? Why is it currently fixed to 101? The number of people mining Bitcoin is variable. I'm genuinely curious.

Doing an analysis of additional security gained by adding each delegate, Bytemaster observed that adding the second delegate increased security by 100% while adding the 100th delegate only increased it by another 1%.  Diminishing returns.

Then there was the desire to have an odd number and enough that anyone could see 101 small businesses is much more decentralized than Bitcoin's ruling 5 big businesses.

Solid reasoning. Do you think it would be best to hire Invictus (the corporation / small business) as one single delegate as opposed to hiring each member of the team as a seperate delegate? Or perhaps each division within Invictus could be hired as a delegate? i.e. Development, marketing, legal, etc. I can see there being advantages to starting with that model.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
As guess this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: should the number of delegates be variable? Why is it currently fixed to 101? The number of people mining Bitcoin is variable. I'm genuinely curious.

Doing an analysis of additional security gained by adding each delegate, Bytemaster observed that adding the second delegate increased security by 100% while adding the 100th delegate only increased it by another 1%.  Diminishing returns.

Then there was the desire to have an odd number and enough that anyone could see 101 small businesses is much more decentralized than Bitcoin's ruling 5 big businesses. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 05:37:05 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
As guess this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: should the number of delegates be variable? Why is it currently fixed to 101? The number of people mining Bitcoin is variable. I'm genuinely curious.
It's a mixture of having a fast checkpointing (after 51% delegates signed a block we essentially have a checkpoint)
.. and scalability / efficiency ..

the number 101 is ODD!! so that a fork will always resolve towards a majority ..

besides those two facts .. no REAL limitation is set .. no optimum is known either ..
could work aswell with 111 or 91 ..

maybe not use 10001 because of the first restriction above

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
As guess this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: should the number of delegates be variable? Why is it currently fixed to 101? The number of people mining Bitcoin is variable. I'm genuinely curious.

Offline Thom

Great concept and assuredly the way forward - except for the Country Club Cronyism.

Candidly that part of your proposal goes against everything a DAC represents.

With regard to disbanding I3 I think it would be more realistic to give I3 one or two years to finish development before handing the reigns to a consensus mechanism.

Folk seem to have extremely unrealistic expectations (measured in days or weeks) for rolling out a tech like Bitshares.

BM and Co. are maximizing shareholder value and serving tough love when needed - like the merger.

Frankly, if this mechanism was in place the merger would not have happened... nor any of the other changes BM has proposed and implemented, all of which have made Bitshares what it is today.

There's a reason organizations have hierarchies and its not a conspiracy.

Group hugs are nice if you want to feel warm and fuzzy but they are absolutely the worst mechanism possible for getting things done.

Right now Bitshares needs a strong and visionary leader to get it off the ground. That leader is BM, period.

Let's give I3 some room to do their job and get Bitshares through the atmosphere.

Man how I love the wisdom of "age". +5% to oldman
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Great concept and assuredly the way forward - except for the Country Club Cronyism.

Candidly that part of your proposal goes against everything a DAC represents.

With regard to disbanding I3 I think it would be more realistic to give I3 one or two years to finish development before handing the reigns to a consensus mechanism.

Folk seem to have extremely unrealistic expectations (measured in days or weeks) for rolling out a tech like Bitshares.

BM and Co. are maximizing shareholder value and serving tough love when needed - like the merger.

Frankly, if this mechanism was in place the merger would not have happened... nor any of the other changes BM has proposed and implemented, all of which have made Bitshares what it is today.

There's a reason organizations have hierarchies and its not a conspiracy.

Group hugs are nice if you want to feel warm and fuzzy but they are absolutely the worst mechanism possible for getting things done.

Right now Bitshares needs a strong and visionary leader to get it off the ground. That leader is BM, period.

Let's give I3 some room to do their job and get Bitshares through the atmosphere.

Once BTS has been launched we will have the capability and demand to hire every single developer currently working in any area of the bitcoin or altcoin industry. We will be able to pay them a higher salary than they are currently making, and we will almost universally be able to extract more value from their work, and be able to manage them better through the transparent system of delegate payment. As long as the work they are currently doing is profitable, we will be able to make it even more profitable and compensate them even higher for their work.

When economic incentives align this clearly, the free market usually moves incredibly fast. We will probably see explosive growth in our management structure and our development. It will be a lot faster than most of us can imagine.

Offline oldman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
Great concept and assuredly the way forward - except for the Country Club Cronyism.

Candidly that part of your proposal goes against everything a DAC represents.

With regard to disbanding I3 I think it would be more realistic to give I3 one or two years to finish development before handing the reigns to a consensus mechanism.

Folk seem to have extremely unrealistic expectations (measured in days or weeks) for rolling out a tech like Bitshares.

BM and Co. are maximizing shareholder value and serving tough love when needed - like the merger.

Frankly, if this mechanism was in place the merger would not have happened... nor any of the other changes BM has proposed and implemented, all of which have made Bitshares what it is today.

There's a reason organizations have hierarchies and its not a conspiracy.

Group hugs are nice if you want to feel warm and fuzzy but they are absolutely the worst mechanism possible for getting things done.

Right now Bitshares needs a strong and visionary leader to get it off the ground. That leader is BM, period.

Let's give I3 some room to do their job and get Bitshares through the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 03:45:49 pm by OldMan »

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Okay so first of all, I'm so insanely exited for the birth of BTS!!!! It's going to be so freaking awesome, I can hardly put it into words. There'll be a new calendar, year 2014 = year 0. This is a complete gamechanger for humanity.

Okay, so on to the topic:

During the multi-DAC phase it made sense to have a centralized development team and an external funding pool to fund their projects and pay their salary. However, now that everything gets consolidated into a single blockchain, we can simplify and improve things tremendously, and we can drastically increase transparency. I want to stress that I argue for these measures not because I don't trust I3, on the contrary I have immense faith in them because they have really proven themselves to be absolute geniuses. Us, currently existing investors do not really need that much transparency, but these measures will be for new investors who will greatly value it, especially those coming from the altcoin community. With enough transparency, it will be so much easier for prospective buyers to decide to buy in, if they're able to see all the cards. As an investor that wants to see our DAC grow, I present these two measures I would like to see implemented:

Consolidate all assets and employees under the direct control of BTS

With the introduction of the revolutionary concept of share dilution in a DAC, we have gained an insane competitive advantage over any other blockchain due to the ability that we now have to rapidly fund development and marketing in a decentralized manner that scales infinitely. To ensure total transparency and optimal governance, we should have it as a rule that there will never be any middle men for paying salary i.e. any person who works full time and is paid a salary by BTS, must work directly for the blockchain rather than as a worker in some external, centralized management structure. With the introduction of share dilution there is simply no need for anyone to be employed by anything else than the DAC.

I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

Also, now that BTSX has bought out AGS, that means we own 100% of what AGS donation are designated to be spent on. With the new capability we have to pay salary directly to team members, instead of going through an external entity, there is no need for these funds to be stored any longer. I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned. The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

In the future, if a delegate wishes to raise a large, one time sum for a project, they should simply issue a user issued asset that is basically a bond for the project with a small interest rate. The bond will then be paid back by the delegate increasing their pay rate. This ensures that the DAC will never have to take on the risk of entrusting a single person with a large amount of money, but only people who specialize in judging risk will have to do that.

Create a forum for large stakeholders where EVERYTHING will be revealed, thus ending secrecy and implementing absolute transparency.

I have never been a big fan of the secrecy that I3 has had for stakeholders, but I fully understand they were necessary for competition reasons. However, now that BTS is maturing, I think it is time to implement a measure that will enable the community to have absolute transparency by proxy, through having independent people in the know. A forum for big stakeholders will allow at least a part of independent stakeholders to know everything that is going on, so they can relay to the broader community that everything is going well. As long as the required stake to gain access is large enough, there will be no chance that a competitor will manage to get in and steal an idea (if they bought that large a stake, they'd rather just collaborate). I'd say something like 0.1% should be the minimum to gain access to this private board. I think that eventually, when we have achieved the Network Effect, there will be no need for any secrecy at all, because there'll be no chance that people will choose to compete with us rather than collaborate.



As a shareholder, I think that if these measures were implemented then it would be such a HUGE value boost, due to the high demand for transparency, especially in the crypto world. It would really help cement the launch pad we are building to get ready for the marketing push and the Moon. People who are smart enough to understand will literally not be able to come up with a single reason why they shouldn't invest, or even bet the farm.

I currently own a couple million of shares, and the only thing holding me back from going all-in is the transparency. If I get a commitment that this absolute transparency will be implemented with the formation of BTS, I'll be making another huge buy. I'm just so insanely excited for BTS!!!! It's literally one of the greatest things EVER. We are shaping the history of the universe. I feel silly talking about the moon, we're going to the freaking GALACTIC CENTER.

 +5%.  You haver some good opines heresia.

I think your requiremnt to be a "large stakeholder" is too low though.   It should be a minimum of 0.02%........twice what you have proposed, minimum.
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?

Margin calls are tied to price feed... flash cashes would have to be across all exchanges.  The feed averages the price over time so it is very unlikely for a flash crash to happen that triggers margin calls.
Flash rallies in the underlying BitAsset cause the same problem. I mentioned in another thread that we could try to peg cryptocurrencies (due to demand for a counterparty-free crypto trading solution) but this admittedly could be a big challenge for doing cryptos.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I didnt think price feeds are a long term solution?
The the questionmark is there on purpose then the answer is .. they are not intended for long term .. just until the markets mature ..

If you just hit the questionmark key accidentally .. then the result would be: *confirmed* :)

Heh its my weird way of asking a question yet it's what I thought was the answer all at the same time...

Well in that case.. we can apply an agile methodology and "care" about the solution when it matters... or we can brainstorm on ideas on how to fix it.. I personally think it makes sense to care when we want to implement, as we don't know what will change in between.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I didnt think price feeds are a long term solution?
The the questionmark is there on purpose then the answer is .. they are not intended for long term .. just until the markets mature ..

If you just hit the questionmark key accidentally .. then the result would be: *confirmed* :)

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?

Margin calls are tied to price feed... flash cashes would have to be across all exchanges.  The feed averages the price over time so it is very unlikely for a flash crash to happen that triggers margin calls.
I didnt think price feeds are a long term solution?
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?

Margin calls are tied to price feed... flash cashes would have to be across all exchanges.  The feed averages the price over time so it is very unlikely for a flash crash to happen that triggers margin calls.

Ok, that helps.  It would help then to get BTSX traded on bigger exchanges (obviously for promotional reasons) but also to create a stronger BTSX price feed, so getting BTSX on bigger exchanges is higher priority than I had thought.

Offline bytemaster

I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?

Margin calls are tied to price feed... flash cashes would have to be across all exchanges.  The feed averages the price over time so it is very unlikely for a flash crash to happen that triggers margin calls.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline stuartcharles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Ok, well as long there is a plan for such an event.  If it can be solved by an emergency hard fork then great.  Even so I've not heard much about such a plan being put in place yet.

That's because no one took the initiative yet. Consider this the initiative.



Also, just to reiterate. I'm not arguing that these changes should be implemented ASAP, or before any particular date. It will take time to adjust, and there will undoubtedly be bumps along the way. But it is absolutely CRUCIAL that we have these things fully implemented before we begin the marketing push, and what I am hoping to get is a commitment from I3 of getting this implemented before it begins.

Using any resources on marketing before we implemented our greatest strength and force multiplier, transparency, would be a waste.

 +5%

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Ok, well as long there is a plan for such an event.  If it can be solved by an emergency hard fork then great.  Even so I've not heard much about such a plan being put in place yet.

That's because no one took the initiative yet. Consider this the initiative.



Also, just to reiterate. I'm not arguing that these changes should be implemented ASAP, or before any particular date. It will take time to adjust, and there will undoubtedly be bumps along the way. But it is absolutely CRUCIAL that we have these things fully implemented before we begin the marketing push, and what I am hoping to get is a commitment from I3 of getting this implemented before it begins.

Using any resources on marketing before we implemented our greatest strength and force multiplier, transparency, would be a waste.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Ok, well as long there is a plan for such an event.  If it can be solved by an emergency hard fork then great.  Even so I've not heard much about such a plan being put in place yet.


Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
The easiest and best way to prevent bitassset losses from a flash crash, would be to have a publicly stated bail-out policy. I the event that a bitAsset becomes decollateralized, we will hard fork to increase the share supply in order to make sure there is collateral for everything. This will massively increase bitAsset holder confidence, and will prevent them from beginning to withdraw their bitassets if the price is tanking, thus reducing the likelihood of a decollateralization from happening. We will be incentivized to keep our promise since if we do the bailout according to our stated policy, we will have completely averted the loss of confidence the decollateralization would otherwise have caused, and our reputation as a safe store of value would be unblemished going into the future.

We could also just have an emergency fund set aside, but that is bad for two reasons. First of all we don't know how much will be needed in the event of the emergency, and secondly it is irrational to have an external trusted entity holding the money for us when we can simply hold it ourselves and vote to put it to inflate it into existence when we deem it necessary. Having an external emergency fund, or an external DAC-owned fund of any kind is categorically bad, it just creates a single point of failure that is completely unnecessary.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 11:02:26 am by matt608 »

Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
 +5% Great thinking here.  I'm not sure about burning the AGS funds, even though I agree in principle that the of burning the other funds and then re-allocating them via dilution would be true to the DAC model, but with 1000 things going on it may be better on this occasion to just allow i3 to keep them, I'm undecided on the matter.  There's a lot of work to be done in the region of delegate showcase + transparency, I don't know that the system is ready to deal with that yet.

As for the private forum, sounds like it could work but there are problems such as - a stakeholder would have to have access to their BTS to access the forum, what if they were on a different computer?  I don't have access to mine all the time and who decides how big the percentage should be to be allowed in, do we need a vote on that?   

The biggest risk I see for the whole BTS project is flash crashes.  From this criticism:
prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 04:02:31 pm by matt608 »

Offline voldemort628

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

The plan has always been to move all employees to delegates and phase out I3.
If by the time we successfully achieve that and the ags donation fund still hasnt run out, what will be done with the left over money?
Btw when do u see we can achieve that?

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I think it is also highly desired going forward to have transparent accounting of profit and loss for the DAC, just as a regular company would, but with the advantage here that it could be real-time. After all, the ultimate purpose of the DAC is to be profitable for owners.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I'm in favor of most of the op.....in time.
However, the part about "insiders forum" probably wouldn't work ? Even if you arbitrarily picked the 100 top addresses or even 1000 top addresses, at a certain point whales could strategically split their stake into multiple addresses and end up taking like 25 spots at the bottom of the list.
Not to mention that anything that appears in print on an internet forum is bound to get leaked (even accidentally), quickly and easily.

To get access, you simply have to sign a message with more than 0.1% of the entire stake. There would be no limit on how many can join, but they can only get in if they are able to produce the signed message.

Offline CryptoPrometheus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
I'm in favor of most of the op.....in time.
However, the part about "insiders forum" probably wouldn't work ? Even if you arbitrarily picked the 100 top addresses or even 1000 top addresses, at a certain point whales could strategically split their stake into multiple addresses and end up taking like 25 spots at the bottom of the list.
Not to mention that anything that appears in print on an internet forum is bound to get leaked (even accidentally), quickly and easily.

EDIT: I also don't necessarily agree that burning funds we already have would be wise at this point. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 04:24:41 am by crypto_prometheus_81 »
"Power and law are not synonymous. In fact, they are often in opposition and irreconcilable."
- Cicero

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.
I think keeping them as an "emergency fund" would be wiser. The rate of dilution at the beginning might not be fast enough to be very helpful if something drastic were to happen. At the very least they should be used to make bitUSD stronger.

Who gets to decide what constitutes an emergency? We should rather have a way to rapidly implement hard forks to inflate the amount we need in case of an emergency. It will be impossible to know how much or how little is needed for an emergency any way.

That contradicts what you said over here...

The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

First you say "let shareholder decide" then you make 2 exception. It's either you are for shareholders deciding everything in which case it is all burned. Or you let I3 decide what to do with the fund. And at this early stage I would make the argument that letting I3 decide is better at least with AGS funds.

Well the marketing push is the specific singular marketing push that will come alongside the announcement of the on and off ramps for bitUSD. I assume that the AGS fund is in fact much larger since it was meant to last many years. Anything that is not going to be used in the short term should be burned.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.

It just makes much sense that stakeholders will get to decide on how this is used. It shouldn't be up to any individual to decide how these funds are used, but only stakeholders by electing delegates that dilute them back and then use them exactly the way that stakeholders consider to be optimal.
Delegates don't control the BTC, USD that the AGS funds have provided right so we would need to figure out as a team how to allocate this because the funding of future technologies wont be an issue anymore.

All the money should be spent on buying BTSX, and the BTSX should then be burned. Distributing them equally to shareholders is the fairest way to allocate them. Like I said, they can then vote to allocate them in the future through dilution in exactly the way they consider to be most profitable.

I like this. However, we should give the Invictus some time to breath. They're human and anyone who is a part of this community knows they're probably pretty stressed out right now. The most I would expect right now is for them to acknowledge this plan and set out to do it in a few months. They are human.

Yeah, of course. Only they can judge the amount of effort it will require to go into it, and do it as they see most effective. I just want to make sure it is fully done before the marketing push, because it will make the marketing push so much more effective. If it has to wait, then I think the marketing push should wait as well, since IMO we should be in our "final form" once we push out to the world.

Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.
I think keeping them as an "emergency fund" would be wiser. The rate of dilution at the beginning might not be fast enough to be very helpful if something drastic were to happen. At the very least they should be used to make bitUSD stronger.

Who gets to decide what constitutes an emergency? We should rather have a way to rapidly implement hard forks to inflate the amount we need in case of an emergency. It will be impossible to know how much or how little is needed for an emergency any way.

That contradicts what you said over here...

The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

First you say "let shareholder decide" then you make 2 exception. It's either you are for shareholders deciding everything in which case it is all burned. Or you let I3 decide what to do with the fund. And at this early stage I would make the argument that letting I3 decide is better at least with AGS funds.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.

It just makes much sense that stakeholders will get to decide on how this is used. It shouldn't be up to any individual to decide how these funds are used, but only stakeholders by electing delegates that dilute them back and then use them exactly the way that stakeholders consider to be optimal.
Delegates don't control the BTC, USD that the AGS funds have provided right so we would need to figure out as a team how to allocate this because the funding of future technologies wont be an issue anymore.

All the money should be spent on buying BTSX, and the BTSX should then be burned. Distributing them equally to shareholders is the fairest way to allocate them. Like I said, they can then vote to allocate them in the future through dilution in exactly the way they consider to be most profitable.

I like this. However, we should give Invictus some time to breath. They're human and anyone who is a part of this community knows they're probably pretty stressed out right now. The most I would expect is for them to acknowledge this plan and set out to do it in a few months. They are human.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 04:16:31 am by MeTHoDx »

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I agree.. but still I don't know if marketing funds would qualify as capital infusion would it? I thought it was for DACs that were going to be merged into BTS needing funding?

Funding will be for literally ANYTHING that stakeholders decide is profitable. If it makes us more money than it costs, we will do it. Development, marketing, charity, artwork, concerts whatever. If you can prove it will be profitable for the DAC to fund it, the DAC will fund it.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I agree.. but still I don't know if marketing funds would qualify as capital infusion would it? I thought it was for DACs that were going to be merged into BTS needing funding?
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.

It just makes much sense that stakeholders will get to decide on how this is used. It shouldn't be up to any individual to decide how these funds are used, but only stakeholders by electing delegates that dilute them back and then use them exactly the way that stakeholders consider to be optimal.
Delegates don't control the BTC, USD that the AGS funds have provided right so we would need to figure out as a team how to allocate this because the funding of future technologies wont be an issue anymore.

All the money should be spent on buying BTSX, and the BTSX should then be burned. Distributing them equally to shareholders is the fairest way to allocate them. Like I said, they can then vote to allocate them in the future through dilution in exactly the way they consider to be most profitable.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.

It just makes much sense that stakeholders will get to decide on how this is used. It shouldn't be up to any individual to decide how these funds are used, but only stakeholders by electing delegates that dilute them back and then use them exactly the way that stakeholders consider to be optimal.
Delegates don't control the BTC, USD that the AGS funds have provided right so we would need to figure out as a team how to allocate this because the funding of future technologies wont be an issue anymore.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.

It just makes much more sense that stakeholders will get to decide on how this is used. It shouldn't be up to any individual to decide how these funds are used, but only stakeholders by electing delegates that dilute them back and then use them exactly the way that stakeholders consider to be optimal.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 03:57:48 am by Rune »

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Would the AGS fund still not be needed for marketing? I mean there is no DAC for that is there that would be funded via capital infusion?

A large portion can be used to shore up the pegs and then use that as incentive to draw in business.. like really the only thing businesses would ask initially is.. how do I know I can get my money out when I need it.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

The plan has always been to move all employees to delegates and phase out I3.

Right, that makes sense. I think the formation of BTS will be the perfect time to do this. We will have an initial time of confusion where we can use this reshuffle to learn how to actually effectively manage paid delegate-developers, and then once we have it nailed down, we can begin to rapidly scale the development team and launch the marketing campaign. When investors see what we are doing and realize that they have full information, they will flock to us and throw their money at us - no other blockchain can offer them anything even remotely like this.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.
I think keeping them as an "emergency fund" would be wiser. The rate of dilution at the beginning might not be fast enough to be very helpful if something drastic were to happen. At the very least they should be used to make bitUSD stronger.

Who gets to decide what constitutes an emergency? We should rather have a way to rapidly implement hard forks to inflate the amount we need in case of an emergency. It will be impossible to know how much or how little is needed for an emergency any way.

Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.
I think keeping them as an "emergency fund" would be wiser. The rate of dilution at the beginning might not be fast enough to be very helpful if something drastic were to happen. At the very least they should be used to make bitUSD stronger.

Offline bytemaster

I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

The plan has always been to move all employees to delegates and phase out I3. 

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Burning them means distributing them equally to all shareholders. Once funds are needed for something new in the future, they are simply diluted into existance by elected delegates. There is no reason to take the risk of having an external entity holding the funds for us.

Offline Mysto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned.
Why? I can think of a million ways these funds can be used. Since BTS is going to have DCI I don't see how this will be of any use to the shareholders.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Quote
I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

 +5%

Obviously it should only be those who are actually working now, and being paid a salary out of AGS funds that should get on as paid delegates. We also need to figure out some proper ways for setting the salary that mitigates developers having their salary lowered if the price tanks.

Also every paid delegate should make a public "Transparency strategy" that they have to strictly follow. I think the best would be for each delegate to have their own forum thread and then posting a work report once per week, where they outline everything they've worked on in a way that is verifiable by stakeholders.

In fact they should have two, one in the public forum where they summarize, and one in the large stakeholder board where they reveal every detail of their work that is sensitive due to competitive or business reasons.

With this strategy it should be possible for us to scale the development and marketing team basically to infinite size, because stakeholders will be able to supervise and manage them extremely effectively.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 03:25:07 am by Rune »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Quote
I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

 +5%
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Okay so first of all, I'm so insanely exited for the birth of BTS!!!! It's going to be so freaking awesome, I can hardly put it into words. There'll be a new calendar, year 2014 = year 0. This is a complete gamechanger for humanity.

Okay, so on to the topic:

During the multi-DAC phase it made sense to have a centralized development team and an external funding pool to fund their projects and pay their salary. However, now that everything gets consolidated into a single blockchain, we can simplify and improve things tremendously, and we can drastically increase transparency. I want to stress that I argue for these measures not because I don't trust I3, on the contrary I have immense faith in them because they have really proven themselves to be absolute geniuses. Us, currently existing investors do not really need that much transparency, but these measures will be for new investors who will greatly value it, especially those coming from the altcoin community. With enough transparency, it will be so much easier for prospective buyers to decide to buy in, if they're able to see all the cards. As an investor that wants to see our DAC grow, I present these two measures I would like to see implemented:

Consolidate all assets and employees under the direct control of BTS

With the introduction of the revolutionary concept of share dilution in a DAC, we have gained an insane competitive advantage over any other blockchain due to the ability that we now have to rapidly fund development and marketing in a decentralized manner that scales infinitely. To ensure total transparency and optimal governance, we should have it as a rule that there will never be any middle men for paying salary i.e. any person who works full time and is paid a salary by BTS, must work directly for the blockchain rather than as a worker in some external, centralized management structure. With the introduction of share dilution there is simply no need for anyone to be employed by anything else than the DAC.

I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

Also, now that BTSX has bought out AGS, that means we own 100% of what AGS donation are designated to be spent on. With the new capability we have to pay salary directly to team members, instead of going through an external entity, there is no need for these funds to be stored any longer. I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned. The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

In the future, if a delegate wishes to raise a large, one time sum for a project, they should simply issue a user issued asset that is basically a bond for the project with a small interest rate. The bond will then be paid back by the delegate increasing their pay rate. This ensures that the DAC will never have to take on the risk of entrusting a single person with a large amount of money, but only people who specialize in judging risk will have to do that.

Create a forum for large stakeholders where EVERYTHING will be revealed, thus ending secrecy and implementing absolute transparency.

I have never been a big fan of the secrecy that I3 has had for stakeholders, but I fully understand they were necessary for competition reasons. However, now that BTS is maturing, I think it is time to implement a measure that will enable the community to have absolute transparency by proxy, through having independent people in the know. A forum for big stakeholders will allow at least a part of independent stakeholders to know everything that is going on, so they can relay to the broader community that everything is going well. As long as the required stake to gain access is large enough, there will be no chance that a competitor will manage to get in and steal an idea (if they bought that large a stake, they'd rather just collaborate). I'd say something like 0.1% should be the minimum to gain access to this private board. I think that eventually, when we have achieved the Network Effect, there will be no need for any secrecy at all, because there'll be no chance that people will choose to compete with us rather than collaborate.



As a shareholder, I think that if these measures were implemented then it would be such a HUGE value boost, due to the high demand for transparency, especially in the crypto world. It would really help cement the launch pad we are building to get ready for the marketing push and the Moon. People who are smart enough to understand will literally not be able to come up with a single reason why they shouldn't invest, or even bet the farm.

I currently own a couple million of shares, and the only thing holding me back from going all-in is the transparency. If I get a commitment that this absolute transparency will be implemented with the formation of BTS, I'll be making another huge buy. I'm just so insanely excited for BTS!!!! It's literally one of the greatest things EVER. We are shaping the history of the universe. I feel silly talking about the moon, we're going to the freaking GALACTIC CENTER.