[Proposal] PTS Angel fund allocation in the new Bitshares PTS

[alphaBar]

He seemed like a thoughtful contemplative person who may even have slight regrets at our previous interaction. 

Thanks gamey, water under the bridge...

... I would like to point out that it is trivial to remove the stake during the sharedrop or to lower it to whatever amount the developer feels comfortable.  So on a technical level and ignoring marketing issues, the reduction of the stake is not needed at the PTS level.  It just needs to be readily known that developers can do what they want.  (Including putting the stake back in to the genesis block if PTS elects to remove it)

I wanted it to be voluntary because I think it is fair to allow the Trust to keep a significant stake and also because I truly believe that it is in the best interest of the Trust to divest responsibly to a reasonable amount (and to profit handsomely in the process). I want the blessing of I3, and I'd rather reach a mutually beneficial result.

[gamey]

I'm not sure about the need for another forum, but there are a lot of competing interests going on now.

Frankly I really disliked Alphabar, but I came across him talking to Fuz on the mumble server last night and I'll have to say I support this effort.  He seemed like a thoughtful contemplative person who may even have slight regrets at our previous interaction. 

Anyway..  The reason I am posting here is because one of the big concerns is selling PTS as something to sharedrop on to developers who are not as friendly to the toolkit creators.  The concern being that those who are not fanboys will not necessarily feel the need to use it because of the large stake.  I would like to point out that it is trivial to remove the stake during the sharedrop or to lower it to whatever amount the developer feels comfortable.  So on a technical level and ignoring marketing issues, the reduction of the stake is not needed at the PTS level.  It just needs to be readily known that developers can do what they want.  (Including putting the stake back in to the genesis block if PTS elects to remove it)

[donkeypong]

Fortunately, "they" are taking it to another forum. Best of luck to you guys. I'm staying here.

[vegolino]

For the record, I disagree with the proposal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Me too 

[hpenvy]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

 

[alphaBar]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

I will also suggest that launching this will require significant dev resources just for maintenance.

For the record, I disagree with the proposal

  to you both.  I honestly don't think this proposal has enough merit or support amongst its own community let alone others to thrive.  Enough of this proposal, instead I propose we have one final celebratory air drop and go out with a bang! 

Are you saying PTS should die?

Yes, he seems to be disagreeing with the divestiture proposal only because he has a preference that PTS should die. Totally illogical. If you think PTS is worthless after the merger then there is nothing to divest and you should have no problem with the proposal. If you think it has value then you should support our efforts to make it better. A rising tide lifts all boats, and what we're trying to do here applies only to PTS and only after the merger is complete.

[godzirra]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

I will also suggest that launching this will require significant dev resources just for maintenance.

For the record, I disagree with the proposal

  to you both.  I honestly don't think this proposal has enough merit or support amongst its own community let alone others to thrive.  Enough of this proposal, instead I propose we have one final celebratory air drop and go out with a bang! 

Are you saying PTS should die?

[yellowecho]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

I will also suggest that launching this will require significant dev resources just for maintenance.

For the record, I disagree with the proposal

  to you both.  I honestly don't think this proposal has enough merit or support amongst its own community let alone others to thrive.  Enough of this proposal, instead I propose we have one final celebratory air drop and go out with a bang! 

[alphaBar]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

I will also suggest that launching this will require significant dev resources just for maintenance.

I think we all agree that the current PoW chain has some serious problems. This would simply be an update to the existing PTS and was not intended to be a new coin. But regardless of how PTS is updated, if PTS is intended to continue acting as a sharedrop instrument (especially for third party DACs), the position of the Trust should be reduced. For the reasons I've outlined, sharedropping for distribution doesn't work so well when a single stakeholder is in possession of a lopsided proportion of the stake. It has worked for III because you are essentially placing yourself in a position of trust by sharedropping a lopsided allocation to the Bitshares Trust. Third party developers would not find this as appealing.

Letting PTS die a slow death would generate no value for the Trust and, as the largest stakeholder, it would seem that the Trust has the most to gain from this. You would earn a lot of money and a lot of trust if you committed to a reasonable divestiture plan. If you agree that PTS should be honored as a sharedrop instrument it would stand to reason that the Trust should responsibly reduce its position which is what I have outlined here.

Edit: Clarity. Also, I think the fundamental question here is whether we want Bitshares to follow the Android model (open platform) or the iOS model (closed platform).

[carpet ride]

For the record, I disagree with the proposal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bytemaster]

I am of the opinion that an upgrade of this sort needs an entirely new name.   

Pollyshares powered by bitshares toolkit. 

I kindly request that we not confuse the bitshares brand. 

I will also suggest that launching this will require significant dev resources just for maintenance.

[cube]

I'd like to go with a bit stronger commitment towards maintaining PTS neutral. Something like no dilution, no politics, delegates just sign blocks and no other changes unless significant shareholders approval. What III is obliged to do with their stake shouldn't be an issue at that point. We should just have a policy that delegates run vanilla client with no modifications. PTS should be as pure as possible even in DPOS. It should be closer to a currency than to a DAC.

Just my opinion.

I agree .. For me PTS has always been a "investment vehicle" .. not even a currency ..
Personally I don't need DPOS with 10 secs block interval .. I would be satisfied with any POS scheme .. even with 10minutes block time

Many btsx stakeholders would be concerned with this proposal. And understandably so.  Many see PTS as a"investment vehicle" to get into more DACs. And they have already benefited from BTS, Vote, DNS (to be merged into superDac) and MUSIC DAC.  To view PTS as a new currency is going to be a paradigm shift for many.  How would a new PTS currency benefit them?   Why should I3 divest its PTS holding?  How would this benefit or affect the bstx stakeholders?  What is in it for them?

IMHO, without satisfying their needs, it would be a tall order to get their support.

My 0.02 BTS.

[xeroc]

I'd like to go with a bit stronger commitment towards maintaining PTS neutral. Something like no dilution, no politics, delegates just sign blocks and no other changes unless significant shareholders approval. What III is obliged to do with their stake shouldn't be an issue at that point. We should just have a policy that delegates run vanilla client with no modifications. PTS should be as pure as possible even in DPOS. It should be closer to a currency than to a DAC.

Just my opinion.

I agree .. For me PTS has always been a "investment vehicle" .. not even a currency ..
Personally I don't need DPOS with 10 secs block interval .. I would be satisfied with any POS scheme .. even with 10minutes block time

[emski]

I'm not sure I like the restrictions for III.
Their stake is significant but this should be the case anyway.
We want them to have a stake in future 3rd party DACs.
This way they will be incentivised to provide support.
I'd leave everything as-is.

I agree that their stake should continue to be significant. 3% is a very large stake to maintain in every future DAC (think of the possibility of owning 3% of all Bitcoin for example). The rest of the stake would mostly be divested in a manner that provides significant ongoing revenue to the Trust and funds further development and support. At the same time it gives confidence to investors that the Trust cannot single-handedly overpower the entire consensus mechanism (this cannot be overstated).

I'd like to go with a bit stronger commitment towards maintaining PTS neutral. Something like no dilution, no politics, delegates just sign blocks and no other changes unless significant shareholders approval. What III is obliged to do with their stake shouldn't be an issue at that point. We should just have a policy that delegates run vanilla client with no modifications. PTS should be as pure as possible even in DPOS. It should be closer to a currency than to a DAC.

Just my opinion.

[alphaBar]

I'm not sure I like the restrictions for III.
Their stake is significant but this should be the case anyway.
We want them to have a stake in future 3rd party DACs.
This way they will be incentivised to provide support.
I'd leave everything as-is.

I agree that their stake should continue to be significant. 3% is a very large stake to maintain in every future DAC (think of the possibility of owning 3% of all Bitcoin for example). The rest of the stake would mostly be divested in a manner that provides significant ongoing revenue to the Trust and funds further development and support. At the same time it gives confidence to investors that the Trust cannot single-handedly overpower the entire consensus mechanism (this cannot be overstated).