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.
Topic: Clarification on Vesting (Read 9212 times)
