PLAY Distribution Explanation...Hopefully!

[Ander]

the issue is not whether hackerfish has any obligation to BTS or not. The issue is a sharedrop on BTS may be detrimental to BTS. depending on the perceived value of PLAY, a snapshot will induce volatility onto the BTS market. Specifically, a large sell-off after the snapshot date.

Any selloff will only be about as big as the increase that happens when the sharedrop is announced.

How much value to people really expect PLAY to have at first?  Lets say its a three million.  The 35% of that sharedropped to BTSX is a million.


Sharedrop announced officially -> BTSX goes up 1 million market cap.  (Thats like 2-3%).
Share drop occurs -> BTSX goes back down 1 million market cap. 


A 2-3% move happens constantly, thats nothing.


If anything, this might be positive for BTS because it is good news.  People might buy the initial hype of getting PLAY, and then maybe decide to hold.

[ag]

the issue is not whether hackerfish has any obligation to BTS or not. The issue is a sharedrop on BTS may be detrimental to BTS. depending on the perceived value of PLAY, a snapshot will induce volatility onto the BTS market. Specifically, a large sell-off after the snapshot date.

[betax]

Hackfisher is working on his English and has said so a while ago (I think when he joined the team). 
I think your comments are always funny and valid criticism, keep them that way.

[btswildpig]

And tonyk , please mind your language ......

Playshares to AGS and PTS are kind of responsibility from the old consensus , so it's not much room to talk about , 10% 10% each , plain and simple .

The Playshare to BTS , however ,  is a gift not a responsibility  .  The only reason a 3rd party DAC want to give BTS any shares at all is for their promotion .  If they want to single my account out , it's their right . (by doing that , they might lose more attention from me)  . However , they don't owe me anything , because that didn't belong to me at all , no matter it's in collateral or not .

You don't have to like their plan for BTS . But the 1 million hackerfisher gave fuzzy is a irrelevant matter , that 1 million is not steal from you because no BTS user is suppose to own any Playshares at all , the 1 million is just a number that hackerfisher created in the program , you have to own the 1 million first in order to let somebody stole it from you .

I see hackerfisher changed his idea for not giving playshares to the collateral , but everything I said before is still true . He changed his idea only because of he wants to satisfy your request , not because he owes you or BTS anything , not because anyone thinks that the 1 million PLS gave to fuzzy is stealing from you  . I hope you can see that clearly now once you let go of your bias and anger .

[btswildpig]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

Maybe because once your collateral enters the system , it's not yours but the system's ?
Would it be fair if you are forcibly cover by the system and lost some BTSX , and still get the whole amount of the Play share-drop for the whole amount of BTSX in the original collateral ? That seems unfair to the non-shorter holders .

Of course , if the playshares you get eventually fits the amount of the collateral you have after you cover it  during a price drop of BTS  ,  then it would be more fair to the others .  (I don't know the tech detail if this were possible) .

[fuzzy]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.

We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.

Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.

This allocation to BTS is also an airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.

This is a great opportunity to explain to newbies and those not well versed in this system that there is one term being thrown around that should be further explained. 

"Collaterals" as used here is actually meant to reflect the tokens one must take out of circulation (using their own funds) in order to short a bitAsset.  For instance...if I want to short 1 bitUSD, I will need put up 3 bitUSD worth of BTS in order to do so.  That 3 bitUSD worth of BTS will be held in Collateral. 

Tony's argument is that it is unfair that the BTS held in collateral while he is shorting are essentially seen as non-existent during sharedrops.  Therefore, if Tony puts up 3 bitUSD worth of BTS during a snapshot window, they will not be taken into account for sharedropping.  They are effectively considered to not exist. 

[HackFisher]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.

We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.

Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.

This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.

Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?

Sometimes others are right, we might just not be convinced to do so. I replied in the original Allocation post, not enough, but not as serious as what you described in this post. It has nothing to do with fuzzy's thread.

[zerosum]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.

We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.

Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.

This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.

Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?

[HackFisher]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.

We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.

Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.

This allocation to BTS is also an airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.

[zerosum]

One and only one question I have is:

Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?

[HackFisher]

Remember  that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.

Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!

airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds???
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??

?

I'm not native English speaker, sorry about that.

I am not neither.
Unfortunately, this does not allow us to make no sense!

It seems that you as a moderate has the power to organize the post as you want. Anyway, please list you questions *directly* one by one, then I can answer them one by one.

[zerosum]

Remember  that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.

Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!

airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds???
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??

?

I'm not native English speaker, sorry about that.

I am not neither.
Unfortunately, this does not allow us to make no sense!

[HackFisher]

Remember  that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.

Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!

airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds???
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??

?

I'm not native English speaker, sorry about that.

[zerosum]

Remember  that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.



Better English will be very much appreciated!!!!!

airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds???
The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.??

?

[HackFisher]

Sure fuzz you should run it...

as long as they are willing participants in the tourney it should be fine...
who cares if somebody is screwed to provide the 'prize money'... it is fine...

as long as it is not US it is OK.

Sorry what's the problem? I didn't get it.

Really? You play the idiot now?
Read my post in your allocation thread.

Interesting, why do you reply in an off-topic thread? And even if we are not going to allocate to market orders, we didn't obey anything!
Take a look at my latest reply at original post.

Remember  that this airdrop is not from your collateral, it is from reserved funds. The allocation to BTS is proportionally to the sum BTS of the total holders, regardless of what proposal.

Can BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?

If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?

yes, as you described, market orders will not be included, the exactly definition would be the balance records in balance db (the balance you see in your wallet).

This will kill the market.

We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.