Author Topic: Clarification on Vesting  (Read 4890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Clarification on Vesting
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2014, 06:48:37 pm »
Play & Music are still honoring at high ratios...
PTS continues...
PTS does not end is not "merged"... it just got lucky enough to have a share-drip on them.

The real news is that I3 will not be building any other DACs.

So, future 3rd party DACs will honor AGS/PTS based on Nov 5 snapshot?

It is up to the 3rd party, but that was the non-binding social contract. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog:
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 oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification on Vesting
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2014, 06:59:23 pm »

You are conflating two separate issues. If you don't think AGS/PTS should be granted X percentage of the superDAC, that has absolutely nothing to do with my post (read it again). I was specifically pointing out that the ratio of shares received by AGS should NOT be equal to those received by PTS because PTS holders paid 6X for liquidity and AGS holders received a 6X discount to be locked in. Your entire argument about future DACs and the value ascribed to PTS applies equally to AGS. It does not address the liquidity gift or the ratio.

But you're creating this out of nothing. The Social Consensus was always 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS. They are co-equal in every way. Where does this "liquidity discount" come from, other than your mind? I was pointing out that any person could probably find a bunch of other random reasons for wishing to discount PTS or less random than yours.

They are absolutely NOT co-equal in every way. PTS investors paid a 6X premium over AGS investors in exchange for one thing: liquidity. This was the ONLY differentiating factor between AGS and PTS and was the crux of the social contract. According to you, this was an insignificant detail, and people are crazy enough to pay 6X more for an asset that is "co-equal in every way."

If that is your argument the sell your pts now. With your pts you have all ready received stakes in btsx,dns and vote. You can choose to liquidate those stakes or hang-on  to them in any ratio to receive bts. As a ags holder I have no option of liquidating my ags.Other then selling the stakes in the dacs I have received. 

Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts. I was one of the hyped soul's that was buying pts at 14$+ pre 2/28 snapshot  to make sure I got btsx before it went to the moon. Pts has had more the enough flexibility to make plenty of profit. As other's have pointed out even if this merger was not going to go through I think the other DAC's are a way of from being completed. Not to mention the mining problem with pts or and lets not forget if we don't merge we are taking are small dev team and splinting them in the dacs.

Fact is the original plan was probably a little to ambitious. Having separate dac's sounds great but I just don't think its practical given the size of the dev teams at the moment. After the brand is built is the time to spin stand alone dac's off.

"sell your pts now" - Thank you for the completely irrelevant investment advice based on your assumption that the proposed allocation will not be modified.

"Also consider the fact that their has been plenty of time to more then profit off pts." - this is a property of liquidity, not some unforeseeable outcome. PTS holders PAID 6X for this opportunity while AGS holders received a 6X discount in exchange for "locking in" and never being able to sell. Now you want to violate the social contract, gift AGS with liquidity, and also let them keep their 6X discount. Sorry, but that violates the social contract and is provably unfair.

First off - I am still waiting on the data that shows the 6x claim of yours.

Second off - you are comparing money that you hold (PTS) with a donation... money that you have given away expecting nothing in return...

Now if it was me I will give 3x more shares to people that  trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return, than to people like you that hodled their money in their pockets...

But you do not stop there... you now claim that you deserve even more because of that? Your greed knows no boundaries....

I told you that the premium was an estimate made by another forum user and is irrelevant. We can calculate the exact premium that PTS users paid for their liquidity once you acknowledge it in the first place. You are arguing against yourself when you say that "I will give 3x more shares to people that  trusted me and donated expecting potentially nothing in return". Of course I agree that people who "lock in" and trust I3 with their funds would rationally expect a greater return.

The problem is that you want to remove that "trust" by violating the social contract after-the-fact. You want to make AGS like (just like PTS) but you want them to keep the discount that they received in exchange for being "locked in" to I3. You can't have it both ways. Either you trust I3 and lock in your shares in exchange for a steep discount (AGS), or you accept a lower rate of return in exchange for liquidity (PTS).

Fist of all drooped your unproved 6X estimation until you could prove it. It is maybe irrelevant how much more premium AGS got But it is very relevant to prove whatever your are defending when you try to make a point. 
There was no mention in the Social Contract about the liquidity, so your point it is irrelevant. Social Contract was 10% PTS and 10% and that is what happening.