are you for or against the LOCKING OF PTS/DNS/VOTE

[amatoB]

1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th.   The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.   Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon? 

So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run.

Bytemaster, lock-ups certainly do exist for real-world corporations, but they typically only apply to insiders. Why can't Bitshares have a lock-up just for the devs? Wouldn't that foster long-term vested interests without punishing other holders?

[davidpbrown]

1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
...

!? Surely that was true of AGS not PTS. PTS pump and dump was an indication of interest in individual snapshots, although less clear where two happened at the same time.

[bytemaster]

There are still snapshots for PTS planned by Play so PTS will go on for its own sake...

[bytemaster]

1) PTS equals all future projects... which is a VERY LONG time horizon and will now be focused on BTSX.   Making the allocation to PTS liquid would be like giving PTS holders an out without having to wait for the respective DACs to be built out over the next 2 years.   
2) PTS was supposed to be for "future DACS"... it is being given credit for past DACs as part of this deal.
3) Anyone who wants to have liquidity can buy from those willing to give it up between now and Nov. 5th.   The result is that as part of the merger many people (including the large Dev fund) are taking a long-term vested interest in things.   Do you really want Toast, Adam, and I to have instant access to a large percentage of all new funds or do you want us vesting with a long time horizon? 

So right now the market for liquidity is taking place and BTS is gaining a large number of people who are committed for the next 2 years to the project while losing those in it for the short run. 

[Stan]

So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.

He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.

I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)

You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.

We are big holders in all those things too.
This is much like trying to find a way to leave everything in your will fairly for all your children.
You want to do it fairly but should mary or suzie get great grandma's wedding ring?

[wesphily]

Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.

Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :

DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.

Translated

I have a little
I have a little
I have a F$%k ton
I have none

[lzr1900]

against

[dcchong]

Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.

Even though DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet, 2 years is too looooooong~~~. So my proposal is :

DNS start 30%,
VOTE start 30%,
PTS start 100%,
ags start 0%.

[gulu]

Wrong topic. Why tie PTS, DNS and VOTE all together?

I think only PTS should enjoy the immediate liquidity, while all other types including AGS, DNS, and VOTE, should have a locking period, since DNS and VOTE don't even have primitive products yet. Even though DNS is liquid right now, it is no more than a future promise. But I do think that DNS was undervalued at 3% valuation. 5% sounds more reasonable.

[emski]

Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..

He stated he do not expect change and the decision is taken.

[xeroc]

Thanks for linking me to that thread again .. I almost missed it .. :-)

[pc]

So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

With the proposal, BM is single-handedly disowning holders of PTS, AGS, DNS and partially BTSX.

He is single-handedly cancelling the social contract regarding PTS and AGS.

I'm calling it single-handedly because 159 forum users can hardly be called a representative majority. (Btw, that majority has just dropped below 75%.)

You cannot do either in a real world situation. And if you try the SEC (or your local equivalent) will give you the kick in the ass that you deserve.

[Ben Mason]

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

This half-baked and incomplete "proposal"  is much more than that:

This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.

So make a clear, rational and compelling argument as others are attempting.  BM will listen.

[pc]

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

This half-baked and incomplete "proposal"  is much more than that:

This is a semi-final proposal that will be adopted and implemented unless someone has a VERY compelling argument.

[xeroc]

Not sure whats happening here .. but WHO in here .. and WHO of those voting against .. do know the EXACT and FINAL numbers? Because .. honestly ... they have not been published yet!

All what has been publishes was a proposal ...

calling BM a thief is the most wrong I can think of ..