Do you find the BitShares PLAY allocation just?

[HackFisher]

This community has always been able to pivot and adapt to what is right. It's frustrating at times as well but that willingness to admit that the course needed to be altered is something I think is a strength not a weakness. I don't actually care about the allocation (as I have all types of Bitshares products) so much as I do that PLAY and Hackfisher seem unable or unwilling to admit a mistake and just correct it. This is troubling to me. I do not see this ending well.

I admit my mistake on that I didn't know that AGS(as a social contract) is no longer being merged to BTS any more, but I also want to admit there were mess on the forum that ideas can not clearly spread out here.

So I want this decision be carefully made, so people out here, QQ groups, Exchanges btc38 discussion, and others can also know this changes.

[godzirra]

This community has always been able to pivot and adapt to what is right. It's frustrating at times as well but that willingness to admit that the course needed to be altered is something I think is a strength not a weakness. I don't actually care about the allocation (as I have all types of Bitshares products) so much as I do that PLAY and Hackfisher seem unable or unwilling to admit a mistake and just correct it. This is troubling to me. I do not see this ending well.

[chryspano]

..... There was no merger of AGS!!!

So what? AGS get more than 10% and PTS get more than 10% nothing to complain about here.


EDIT
Still no good reason so far to change the allocation imo.

[godzirra]

AGS got more than 10%
PTS got more than 10%
BTS got something like 35%

It's a fair allocation imo.

Would I find fair an allocation of 20-20-15% ? yeah that would be a fair allocation too but the point is that now we have an official allocation and you are asking to change it for no good reason imo.

I also find it hard for someone that invested after 28th of February to be all in PTS/AGS and to not have any bts, in any case you got more than the minimum 10% so there is no reason to complain for anything.

I could say that current allocation "punishes" all bts dumpers and this is something I like!


I hold double the amount of bts than I had from 28th February snapshot and also I have 6x more PTS/AGS now than then(80% is AGS) I dont know which allocation will profit me more but I know that If I had sold-dumped the majority of my bts I would be really pissed off with current allocation.

I never dumped any Btsx. You think there's no good reason? How about Hackfisher misunderstanding the social contract? There was no merger of AGS!!!

[sumantso]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.

That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.

Look how thin the voting is. I can spend half an hour creating multiple accounts and change the voting in my favour.

[godzirra]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.

That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.

Why are we voting on your misunderstanding of the so called merger? Just admit you misunderstood the social contract.

[chryspano]

AGS got more than 10%
PTS got more than 10%
BTS got something like 35%

It's a fair allocation imo.

Would I find fair an allocation of 20-20-15% ? yeah that would be a fair allocation too but the point is that now we have an official allocation and you are asking to change it for no good reason imo.

I also find it hard for someone that invested after 28th of February to be all in PTS/AGS and to not have any bts, in any case you got more than the minimum 10% so there is no reason to complain for anything.

I could say that current allocation "punishes" all bts dumpers and this is something I like!


I hold double the amount of bts than I had from 28th February snapshot and also I have 6x more PTS/AGS now than then(80% is AGS) I dont know which allocation will profit me more but I know that If I had sold-dumped the majority of my bts I would be really pissed off with current allocation.

[HackFisher]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.

That's the best way to vote out new proposals from many at present.

[sumantso]

Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.

I think that's the gist of it. While BTS gave a healthy and generous airdrop, twice, to the PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE community there wasn't a buyout.

Most people in the community viewed it as a buyout however and divested in PTS with the expectation their stake in future DACs would come from BTS.

It's my opinion that this is a false assumption and damaging to the community and third party DAC developers looking to do the right thing.

With a liquid PTS, untied to people's investments in other DACS, there will be buying/selling PTS based on the pipeline of upcoming DACs. The market will put a value on the 10% snapshot of the social contract.

Like Godzirra said: This doesn't have to be complicated. What's complicated it is that now everyone wants BTS snapshotted because they feel BTS bought out PTS via airdrop.

Anyway, I'm sounding like a broken record. The value in the airdrop is the community. If the community has decided that a DAC (currently BTS because that's where everyone's money and hope is. Maybe next month it'll be something else) then...eh. It is what it is.

Riverhead - BM and co. messed up (again!) by letting PTS survive. The best thing would have been to announce its done and that its value is contained within BTS. Sure, the network would still run - its decentralized open source, and anybody can upgrade it to DPoS, but it would have lost support and the ambiguity that comes with it.

Its off-topic, but I don't think at this point PTS acts as a good sharedrop instrument. A lot of the original holders have sold off, and there is no saying what the distribution is right now. AGS list, on the other hand, still has value as it shows all those who actively donated towards a 2.0 project and so is a valuable list to sharedrop on.

I feel a sharedrop coin is possible, but PTS can't be it. It should be a combination of AGS, NXT , NEM (updated shareholder list minus all the sockpuppet and hacked accounts), LTBCoin etc. A coin like that with features like TITAN and DPoS should be successful and also operate as a good sharedrop target for any new project aiming to get a network effect.

[sumantso]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

Anybody can register and vote on this poll. This is useless unless one of the mods makes it so that newly registered members can't vote.

[HackFisher]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

Please understand that this allocation is released before the comment from bytemaster. before that, I did not know any details about the source.

I decide to no longer give any comment on this, the final decision will decided by this poll, not any single one.

[godzirra]

Bytemaster said this:

"I also feel that AGS/PTS deserve more than BTS simply because AGS was used to fund your grant Hack Fisher.    So I would reverse the allocation if it were up to me.  10% BTS and 40% AGS/PTS."

So how is it that you don't understand where your grant came from? It's directly from AGS.

[Riverhead]

Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.

I think that's the gist of it. While BTS gave a healthy and generous airdrop, twice, to the PTS/AGS/DNS/VOTE community there wasn't a buyout.

Most people in the community viewed it as a buyout however and divested in PTS with the expectation their stake in future DACs would come from BTS.

It's my opinion that this is a false assumption and damaging to the community and third party DAC developers looking to do the right thing.

With a liquid PTS, untied to people's investments in other DACS, there will be buying/selling PTS based on the pipeline of upcoming DACs. The market will put a value on the 10% snapshot of the social contract.

Like Godzirra said: This doesn't have to be complicated. What's complicated it is that now everyone wants BTS snapshotted because they feel BTS bought out PTS via airdrop.

Anyway, I'm sounding like a broken record. The value in the airdrop is the community. If the community has decided that a DAC (currently BTS because that's where everyone's money and hope is. Maybe next month it'll be something else) then...eh. It is what it is.

[godzirra]

Well thanks for at least listening to me gripe.

Really where does this 35% BTS allocation come from? And who are the people who feel like that's anywhere near a reasonable amount? I haven't heard a single reason why it should be so outsized? Other than personal gain I suppose. I have quite a bit of BTS as well, I just find this allocation to be completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to offend anyone, especially not Hackfisher, but if anything it should be weighted more to where you got your initial funding from. That point cannot be stressed enough.

Hackfisher please reward those people who invested in your project! BTS holders are not going to change much of anything based on you changing the allocation. It is completely unexpected that you would allocate so much to BTS.

It based on the merger proposal, I thought the AGS/PTS (including the AGS after 2.28) has already being merged to BTS, and I remember there is a post mentioning that 3rd DACs should honoring BTS instead of AGS/PTS now, but I can not find it anymore. (someone has the link, please pm it to me)

At last, we decide to honor all of three, but if most people (> 50%) involved in this poll util Wednesday 12:00PM(UTC)  think that we need a new proposal for AGS, I will definitely give a new proposal (a promise to delulo on yesterday's mumble).

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg135971#msg135971

&

...................

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS...  BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals.    This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition. 
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there. 

..............

Hackfisher if you're acting based on this post I think you're mistaken. AGS was not merged! And Bytemaster himself said that the allocation should be changed. This quote is not applicable to this allocation. It was a rejected merger proposal. Also to make this decision based on a vote is even more ridiculous because people will just vote for their own personal gain not necessarily what is right. What a joke. Why is this so difficult? I don't understand.

Basically how I understand this decision process is that:
1. Hackfisher doesn't understand how PTS and AGS were never merged.
2. The community is going to vote their pocketbooks, regardless of what is the right thing to do.

[HackFisher]

Lastly is it the community's opinion that you won't support any DAC that hasn't gifted the proper respectful amount?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

That's the thing AGS donors have already funded PLAY. I think it's deincentivizing the kind of support that is needed the most. I've been very understanding of the changes made by I3 in the past. They always seemed to be as fair and thoughful as possible, and seemingly for the right reasons. This decision seems to be completely arbitrary. It's a departure from what I'm used to from Bitshares. So yes I do not really envision myself supporting PLAY with future funding. I'd rather just passively hold my BTS.

We need to clarify two things, first, AGS donors is used to built toolkit not PLAY (thus all the 3rd DACs need to honor AGS at least 10% instead of honoring PLAY), second, I received a grant from 3I to build PLAY but I have no idea where is come from.