Author Topic: Can someone explain why DNS is treated differently?  (Read 3602 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Unclaimed DNS is quite high; somewhere around 3.6 billion last I checked.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline bytemaster

Thanks... DNS was a very hard call and it all depends upon which perspective one wishes to take:

From a BTS perspective the options are:  to buy or not to buy?   The consideration is how much of a "threat" is DNS as a competitor to BTS assuming DNS would have BitAssets as well to buy domains.  In this case DNS would be confusing the market with DNS-USD.    The technology behind DNS wasn't really much of a consideration, it was open source and BTS will make improvements upon the work that DNS has made.   The alternative to BTSX buying DNS is for BTSX to compete with DNS.    To compete with DNS means duplicate work, fractioned market, etc but how much would that really cost?

So from BTS perspective the question of what kind of bid to place on DNS is the question.   If DNS holders don't like they bid they can take the free funds and compete.  If they don't think they can compete then it was a good bid for them. 

The other aspect of this is that the only reason for including DNS at all is to gain some support from those that bought DNS... so for the sake of information, could someone post the total "unclaimed DNS"?  We wanted to make sure that PTS holders who held at the snapshot date of DNS and then sold got something for the fall in price of PTS after the snapshot.

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 bobb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Hey Guys/Hey Bytemaster,

I guess there is a lot of discussions happening if vesting is a good idea and AGS/PTS are treated fairly.
I also bought some PTS and I think a 10% cut is not that bad if we want Bitshares to thrive.

But I haven't heard a single valid argument why DNS is treated differently.
So maybe somebody is able to help me understand.

Dan argued that DNS's marked cap can not be treated equally because it lacks liquidity and kept telling that $10K figure.
That figure is just not true as it was just pulled from bter and the most volume and liquidity is available at btc38.

Another problem I have  with that argument is that with the proposal in the wild everyone was pulling their bids.
The liquidity established again at the new market price which was a result of the announcement.
So it is a slight stunt to first scare away/down the liquidity and than later start arguing there was none.

Look at the liquidity and volume at the new market price: [nofollow] [nofollow]
The volume on btc38 in the last 24h was about 600.000.000 DNS alone. Thats almost close to the volume of BTSX.
(I know volume is != liquidity but still, the liquidity was just shifted to the new 'announced value')
If liquidity is a reason to devalue the market cap, why wasn't this equally applied for PTS and DNS?

DNS/KeyID  was already trading live. It was pushed to exchanges. Features were announced, etc.
Additionally shareholders have been told by the core team that the invested funds will be preserved.

Do you still think this is balanced? Look at the markets:

BTSX +20%
PTS    -10%
DNS   -50% (at least)

It just feels as you have the least skin in the game at the DNS/KeyID DAC. Is that correct?

For this thread I have one wish. please stay on topic and be nice to each other. I welcome any valid argument :)

I think this merger is a good idea, but if we do so why at 7% AGS/PTS and 3% DNS?

DNS brings a lot to the table, which also BTSX benefits from.
BTSX+DNS would be great. But screwing the DNS investors that hard?
Please look at the markets and tell me what I am missing here.


Why was it announced (in the beginning) that this will be based on market cap (Dan)?
Why did toast tell everyone that invested funds will be preserved?
Why are the DACs (PTS/DNS) treated differently regarding their market cap/liquidity? 

Thanks again for everyone's time. Let's sort this and move on!