Author Topic: Final allocation offer - slightly changed proposal!  (Read 7674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
GNS should only be tradeable on the BTS exchange.
you cannot enforce that :(

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.

what do you mean? my proposal is not a new allocation. The merger allocation will be aneffected, just the given promise is reallocated slightly and a asset is created to do it on the blockchain without the AGS/PTS outside snapshots.

What do you mean "the given promise is reallocated?"  -  you just mean using AGS/PTS-based snapshots via GNS instead of BTS-based snapshots, right?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I personally think BTSX should keep 100%, add dilution & make a merger deal with Vote DAC. They can also make their best offer to DNS. BTSX can then compete by itself to either copy features or make merger deals.

PTS & AGS can go on as before.

(Edit: I want to bring AGS & PTS into BTSX to make one BitShares, but if the deal is viewed negatively, complicates BTSX and removes income then AGS & PTS are maybe better off competing separately. Though I will get behind whatever deal Bytemaster is for, just as I was behind the original deal even though it was too generous to PTS & my AGS imo.)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 07:17:08 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.

what do you mean? my proposal is not a new allocation. The merger allocation will be aneffected, just the given promise is reallocated slightly and a asset is created to do it on the blockchain without the AGS/PTS outside snapshots.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist


for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.

This is interesting.  We need a way to go back and forth with assets.  Say someone wants 20% of bitPuppies to go to PTS, then they can just transfer to those keys/addresses.  Now someone sells 10% of my bitPuppies as something of a crowdsale.   Now when it comes time for genesis block creation, can the asset owners be pulled out for a genesis block creation or is it not possible due to TITAN ? 


I don't know. But it should be possible to build in a snapshot feature for a share allocation. GNS should only be tradeable on the BTS exchange. So no external exchanges who are not supporting a sharedrop.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 06:33:47 pm by Shentist »

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
We can't change the proposed allocation without hurting yet another group.

The #1 group to be hurt was DNS and we are taking lots of effort to make them whole.

The other groups are "close enough" in my eyes that changing the allocation now can only help insiders.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.

This is interesting.  We need a way to go back and forth with assets.  Say someone wants 20% of bitPuppies to go to PTS, then they can just transfer to those keys/addresses.  Now someone sells 10% of my bitPuppies as something of a crowdsale.   Now when it comes time for genesis block creation, can the asset owners be pulled out for a genesis block creation or is it not possible due to TITAN ? 
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
Interesting proposal ..

how are you calculating "liquidity" into the PTS/AGS equations?

i don't, but in fact PTS will get more because only 1.7 million are mined right now and 2 mill AGS are granted. So you could say PTS will get a premium.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.

thx toast - your support means a lot to me. but i would like to reverse the allocation so everyone in the new BTS will have some equal supply. with a reverse allocation no one can argue we prefer someone.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
I agree 50/50 too, but in interest of trying to build bridges etc I am also fine with 20% BTS.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Interesting proposal ..

how are you calculating "liquidity" into the PTS/AGS equations?

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist

I like the first part.  Give BTS something, but it really makes no sense to sharedrop on top of BTS holders.  Thats just reality. 

You start losing me about bitAssets being paid by GNS.. Why ?  Seems like everything becomes overly complicated.  Someone should and I am guessing will create a PTS/AGS snapshot to continue the social consensus.

for simplicity i would agree, but to make the whole merger fairer i really feel that the supportes after Feb. 28 snapshot should be rewarded more, because they took a huge risk and loose now much of the promised value.

I would like to see that GNS would not matter in daily life, just if you want to create a Asset or shardrop. I would also like that the Asset could only create in bitUSD and are automatically converted from buying GNS. so for the enduser he can handle everything in bitUSD and for creating new Assets we will have GNS in the backround.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.
Exactly! And if III want to honor the original contract their 20% total stake in future DACs should be non-dilutable.
But again if this happens, why are PTS/AGS given a stake in BTS ?

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
I think this is a good idea. BTS isn't a great vehicle for the social consensus, but GNS could be. I'd say it should just be 50/50 AGS/PTS.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I like the first part.  Give BTS something, but it really makes no sense to sharedrop on top of BTS holders.  Thats just reality. 

You start losing me about bitAssets being paid by GNS.. Why ?  Seems like everything becomes overly complicated.  Someone should and I am guessing will create a PTS/AGS snapshot to continue the social consensus.
I speak for myself and only myself.