Clarification on Vesting

[oco101]

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 AGS...no 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.

[bytemaster]

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. 

[clayop]

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?

[bytemaster]

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.

[alphaBar]

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 AGS...no 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).

[tonyk]

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 AGS...no 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....

[alphaBar]

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.

Apparently nobody knew what they were getting into, this whole process is already re-writing all the rules, not even sure what you are talking about here.

If everyone knew there was going to be a single DAC and that PTS and AGS would be converted into the same token with the same properties and they could buy PTS or AGS with AGS getting 6x the stake for the investment in that DAC do you think anyone at all would have invested in PTS?  I certainly wouldn't have.

 

[amencon]

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.

Apparently nobody knew what they were getting into, this whole process is already re-writing all the rules, not even sure what you are talking about here.

If everyone knew there was going to be a single DAC and that PTS and AGS would be converted into the same token with the same properties and they could buy PTS or AGS with AGS getting 6x the stake for the investment in that DAC do you think anyone at all would have invested in PTS?  I certainly wouldn't have.

As for vesting, if it is going to happen, I think this is a good clarification and a much better strategy then the previous one.

[donkeypong]

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

Everyone knew what they were getting into. The market created a different value for each. Trying to re-write the rules with a discount now makes little sense.

[alphaBar]

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 AGS...no 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.

[alphaBar]

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."

AGS was flawed and it continued on for so long that it became a better deal. The Social Consensus never included any discount. Nor has there ever been talk of one until now from you, after the fact. AGS liqudity has been discussed many times. Just as a PTS buyout has been discussed as one possibility.

So you are saying that liquidity had nothing to do with people paying 6X more to obtain PTS instead of AGS, an otherwise identical investment. I'm sorry I really cannot hold a conversation with you.

[spoonman]

DNS and PTS should be immediately liquid.  The only reason I can think of to justify this is that BTS will have far greater liquidity than PTS/DNS and a large motivated seller would have incentive to not sell now but wait for BTS liquidity to sell into.  However, vesting these 2 creates some other current market distortions and may carry over into BTS as a long drawn out sell pressure that could have been satisfied today in the PTS and DNS markets.

I think this is an opportunity to squash the quibble between the PTS/AGS liquidity arguments.  PTS should remain liquid and perhaps AGS should be completely locked for a year and then vested over the following year.  I only own AGS currently (of the two) and did not expect to be able to sell them anytime soon.  (though, I did expect someone would eventually make a tradeable asset to replace AGS.  That had been talked about many times)

So i suggest:
PTS - no vesting
DNS - no vesting
AGS - locked then vesting
VOTE - normal vesting

This make sense to me and puts out a few needless fires.

 

[Gentso1]

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 AGS...no 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.

[donkeypong]

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."

AGS was flawed and it continued on for so long that it became a better deal. The Social Consensus never included any discount. Nor has there ever been talk of one until now from you, after the fact. AGS liqudity has been discussed many times. Just as a PTS buyout has been discussed as one possibility.

[alphaBar]

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 AGS...no 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."

[luckybit]

Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.

There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... 

I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up.  After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.

This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.

In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation.  No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.

Is the vesting curve continuous? I asked this somewhere else but my question got buried. So do I get 1/24 after the first month, 2/24 after the 2nd month, etc?

In my opinion, this would be a better way to go about this as anyone looking to "get out" would sell sometime after the date the funds are "released" with smaller sell pressure rather than every 6 months or year, which would have a big incoming dump with a known date. If I knew that on Nov 1st, my funds and everyone's funds would be released for the first time in 6 months and I want out, everyone would sell...on the flip side, if I held something I knew people would be dumping into for the first time in 6 months, I would sell off before that date then buy in at the dip, effectively scalping some of the cost. Ideally, it would be a daily release of whatever percent that may have a constant pressure the market could get acclimated to....this is all speculation though as people may be interested in just holding like me

The vesting period could be randomly shuffled so that no one knows when or how much they'd get of their stakes. That is called a variable interval schedule and it is probably most effective as a way to prevent the market from being able to dump on information of an income whale dumping because no one would be able to predict when that whale would receive their stake.

If people prefer a variable interval schedule it could work that way too. It could even be variable ratio so people don't know the percentage of their stake or when they'll receive it. Each of these different mechanisms have different pros and cons.

I suspect that Bytemaster weighted his decisions carefully in favor of doing what is already trusted and tried. Bitcoin has a fixed interval schedule in it's reward structure so that predictions about the price can be easily made. We could do predictions easier when we know what the supply will be and when and this can actually motivate people to think about the long term strategy while variable interval schedules put people into the casino mentality where they just hope to get their rewards but don't pay attention to any specific dates.

The block reward halving in Bitcoin allows people to pay attention to a specific date. It allows people to buy as many Bitcoins as they can in the hope that after that event they'll be rich. If everything follows the laws of mathematics, if demand stays the same or increases, then a lot of people do get rich when the block reward halves due to scarcity.

In my opinion Bytemaster should use every tool in the toolbox to make Bitshares X profitable for not just himself but even the small newbie shareholders. I think a lot of concessions were given to delegates but it might help if in the future there are some rewards given to the little guys who may not have had the chance to become a delegate but who stuck with Invictus during this difficult merger.

I see a lot of issues with the merger but if you're going to merge it should bring the community together rather than divide it. In the end if the little guy investors get rich then everyone gets rich so really they are the ones who make or break Bitshares X. Their demand is what makes everything work.

[luckybit]

Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.

There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... 

I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up.  After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.

This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.

In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation.  No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.

It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".

An additional idea developed originally for the MC2 project would be to have randomized vesting periods so that no one can predict. That variable schedule could create dump resistance but it is probably better for the market to have predictability.

So you have predictability which is good for the market as it currently is. People need to be able to figure out how much risk they are in and what to do. Certainty, predictability, stability, is what people need as early investors.

So I think this is one of your best decisions although there were other options available.

[bitmeat]

I'm just looking for clarity, clearly assumptions have been wrong before. I'm with you on that.

[biophil]

Here is another concern, during the two years will 20% of new DACs only be given to vested stakes or will unvested stakes also be rewarded?

Why wouldn't new (3rd-party) DACs be awarded to AGS itself? I think the whole idea is that Bytemaster is only ever going to work on one DAC: BTS. There won't be a constellation of Bytemaster DACs to honor the social consensus. But if this all works, there definitely should be a constellation of 3rd-party DACs. Why wouldn't they still honor the social consensus?

[donkeypong]

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 AGS...no less random than yours.

[bitmeat]

Here is another concern, during the two years will 20% of new DACs only be given to vested stakes or will unvested stakes also be rewarded?

[alphaBar]

Hey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period.

Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?

This idea of a discount for liquidity is interesting. I haven't seen it before. It seems that you are arbitrarily valuing the liquidity, while you could just as easily pick 10 other aspects of these stakes to discount/devalue for various reasons. Really, if you were to do this, then it would be the equivalent of a PTS premium. What the hell are PTS holders expecting? We've got our DNS, Vote, Music, and BTSX stakes already. Does anyone else here see too many other new DACs on the horizon? These are the profitable ones. One could easily make the argument that PTS holders are getting a major gift here. From holding something that could be utterly worthless (I don't see BitShares Me or Play on the near horizon, do you?), this merger gives PTS additional stake in BitShares X. Are you kidding? Give me your Alta Vista shares; here's some Google.

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.

[Xeldal]

DNS and PTS should be immediately liquid.  The only reason I can think of to justify this is that BTS will have far greater liquidity than PTS/DNS and a large motivated seller would have incentive to not sell now but wait for BTS liquidity to sell into.  However, vesting these 2 creates some other current market distortions and may carry over into BTS as a long drawn out sell pressure that could have been satisfied today in the PTS and DNS markets.

I think this is an opportunity to squash the quibble between the PTS/AGS liquidity arguments.  PTS should remain liquid and perhaps AGS should be completely locked for a year and then vested over the following year.  I only own AGS currently (of the two) and did not expect to be able to sell them anytime soon.  (though, I did expect someone would eventually make a tradeable asset to replace AGS.  That had been talked about many times)

So i suggest:
PTS - no vesting
DNS - no vesting
AGS - locked then vesting
VOTE - normal vesting

This make sense to me and puts out a few needless fires.

[donkeypong]

Hey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period.

Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?

This idea of a discount for liquidity is interesting. I haven't seen it before. It seems that you are arbitrarily valuing the liquidity, while you could just as easily pick 10 other aspects of these stakes to discount/devalue for various reasons. Really, if you were to do this, then it would be the equivalent of a PTS premium. What the hell are PTS holders expecting? We've got our DNS, Vote, Music, and BTSX stakes already. Does anyone else here see too many other new DACs on the horizon? These are the profitable ones. One could easily make the argument that PTS holders are getting a major gift here. From holding something that could be utterly worthless (I don't see BitShares Me or Play on the near horizon, do you?), this merger gives PTS additional stake in BitShares X. Are you kidding? Give me your Alta Vista shares; here's some Google.

[clayop]

It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".

 

[mf-tzo]

I think everything AGS-PTS-DNS-VOTE stakes should all be liquid from day 1 after the snapshot. Let anyone wanting to dump to dump.Others will buy them and we can start the new BTS DAC

The main reason is that I think that is that in the end of the day you never know what happens. LTS for example made AGS-PTS liquid after a couple of months and by the time we were able to claim them LTS was dead. Don't be so afraid of people dumping shares. I think others will pick them up, as long as we have a final strong plan for the future

[valtr]

Please confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.

The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.

The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated.

All BTSX will remain liquid... no migrating... just an upgrade to your wallet. All BitUSD / BitBTC/BitGLD unaffected.

Thanks for clarification.

[alphaBar]

Hey Dan, why don't you give us the logic behind your "vesting" proposal. PTS holders paid a 6X premium for their liquidity while AGS holders received a 6X discount for being "locked in". Now, as the largest holder of AGS, you want to "gift" liquidity to AGS AND keep your 6X discount. All at the expense of everyone else in the superDAC. Even worse, the new proposal actually reverses PTS liquidity by locking them into a vesting period.

Rather than giving me the standard "it hurts me more than it hurts you" answer, why don't tell us simply - how can the value of liquidity be ZERO? What rational justification do you have for taking out the only differentiating factor between AGS and PTS (actually reversing them in a sense) and at the same time allowing AGS to keep the 6X discount for being "locked in"?

[Vizzini]

Whatever you do, just make it zombie-proof.

[CryptoPrometheus]

  This plan makes much more sense!

[svk]

to this, it's the right way to handle it.

Maybe DNS+PTS could've been give more liquidity, but I don't intend to sell my future allocation anyway so I'm OK with this.

[donkeypong]

This sounds very, very fair. Those who objected to the allocations are in the clear minority, but they had some valid concerns. The main one had to do with their understanding of this vesting. Thanks for clarifying; glad this will be phased over time.

[Gentso1]

Please confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.

The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.

The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated.

All BTSX will remain liquid... no migrating... just an upgrade to your wallet. All BitUSD / BitBTC/BitGLD unaffected.

thanks

 

[bytemaster]

Please confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.

The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.

The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated.

All BTSX will remain liquid... no migrating... just an upgrade to your wallet. All BitUSD / BitBTC/BitGLD unaffected.

[Gentso1]

Please confirm that this vesting period only applies to the 500mill or whatever the final number created.

The btsx I hold now when transferred to bts I will have the option to sell whenever I prefer.

The ags I donated to pre 2/28 will be slowly released during the vesting period you stated. 

[feedthemcake]

It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".

 

[bytemaster]

It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".   

[bitmeat]

This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.

Isn't that exactly when a "huge dump" will happen.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but as soon as the shares are unlocked, the market will be flooded.

If I understand the new clarification correctly, the shares will be gradually unlocked. E.g. after 6 months you can "dump" 25% but still keep the 75% locked, and sell whenever.

So this ensures gradual transition, and is the right thing to do.

[Riverhead]

This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.

Isn't that exactly when a "huge dump" will happen.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but as soon as the shares are unlocked, the market will be flooded.

The shares are being unlocked over time. There won't be a huge flood of shares on the open market all at once.

[bitmeat]

The confusion came from how it was worded when it was announced. Thank you for the clarification!

You guys need to put together an info graphic showing a breakdown of how the mechanics will work.

EDIT: The quote that really got me worked up, but is now apparently amended as per this clarification:

2 year vesting period... ie: you can withdraw early for a fraction of your cut.. if you want to sell after 6 months you get 25%... if you wait for a year you get 50%... etc. 

[Ggozzo]

This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.

Isn't that exactly when a "huge dump" will happen.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but as soon as the shares are unlocked, the market will be flooded.

[feedthemcake]

Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.

There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... 

I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up.  After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.

This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.

In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation.  No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.

Is the vesting curve continuous? I asked this somewhere else but my question got buried. So do I get 1/24 after the first month, 2/24 after the 2nd month, etc?

In my opinion, this would be a better way to go about this as anyone looking to "get out" would sell sometime after the date the funds are "released" with smaller sell pressure rather than every 6 months or year, which would have a big incoming dump with a known date. If I knew that on Nov 1st, my funds and everyone's funds would be released for the first time in 6 months and I want out, everyone would sell...on the flip side, if I held something I knew people would be dumping into for the first time in 6 months, I would sell off before that date then buy in at the dip, effectively scalping some of the cost. Ideally, it would be a daily release of whatever percent that may have a constant pressure the market could get acclimated to....this is all speculation though as people may be interested in just holding like me

[xeroc]

I told you guys so

[Method-X]

Yeah lets avoid a big dump after 2 years. It adds market uncertainty.

[biophil]

Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.

There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... 

I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up.  After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.

This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.

In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation.  No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.

Is the vesting curve continuous? I asked this somewhere else but my question got buried. So do I get 1/24 after the first month, 2/24 after the 2nd month, etc?

[Frodo]

  This way we also avoid a huge dump after the 2 years.

[bytemaster]

Vesting only applies to VOTE + DNS + PTS + AGS.

There is some confusion over whether or not claiming your funds early results in losing everything else... 

I think that you can claim them as they mature.... so after 1 year you are 50% liquid and 50% locked up.  After 2 years everyone should be able to claim 100% of their allocation.

This is a compromise on the liquidity proposition... the other idea would have incentivized people to hold on for 2 years to avoid losing anything.

In other words... everyone will eventually get 100% of their allocation.  No penalty for claiming your matured BTS.

It is linear... each block you can unlock some small amount of shares... make a transaction with the "fee/share ratio is favorable".