DevShares ideas to consider before launch

[nomoreheroes7]

Reviewing sharedrop theory:

Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.

You get share-dropped on in proportion to the perceived value of the demographic your coin represents.  It's the developer's choice.  It would be just as legitimate to do 10/10/10/10/10/10...10 and attract 10 diverse demographics, seven of which "deserve" nothing.

The simplest logic is to treat all three groups the same because they overlap anyway. This minimizes (obviously it does not eliminate) arguments about percentages.  All three groups get more than they "deserve". 

If you still want to argue, argue why your favorite demographic would give a bigger boost to the new DAC if its share of that DAC was somehow just a bit bigger.

I'm not going to make a fuss, but well reasoned criticism of important decisions shouldn't be discouraged.  Like code, all decisions will be tested at some point the sooner they are tested the better.  It looks like the decision has been made however so I'll keep it brief.

I favour 10/10/80 AGS/PTS/BTS

It probably makes no difference at all to the success of DevShares whether its 33/33/33 or 10/10/80.  The default position should be the one that favours BTS.  We did just give away half a billion BTS to AGS/PTS for the sake of getting (ex)i3 to be loyal to BTS alone.  They should be fighting BTS's corner in every sphere including sharedrops, without breaking past commitments, in which case 10% honours the social contract.

Why were half a billion BTS given away only to share drop 66% on them a month later?  It's not an even distribution at all - which is the aim because that maximises incentives - (you wouldn't do a giveaway where one half got $10 and half for got $1, you'd do $5 each). 

It *appears*, even if this is not the case, that the allocation is chosen based on maximising developer incentive who may have large PTS/AGS stakes, not market incentive for network effect, which is just the cover story.

*-Prepares package for head shipment-*

As someone who needs the votes of Toast, Stan + everyone, I hope people appreciate me not hiding behind a sock puppet to say potentially controversial things.  I am a BTS fighter.

Agree with you Matt 110%. Keep up the good fight.

[gamey]

It isn't controversial to argue for your economic interests using whatever logical arguments are available. 

It really doesn't matter, just get devshares out there.  It won't ever be worth much to begin with. 

For effectiveness, one wants to maximize certain types of holders because it is a test-chain.  If most of the technical supporters have larger stakes in PTS/AGS then it makes sense to weigh it in favor of PTS/AGS to gather that support.  Thats the only reason I can think that matters.  I plan to gamble mine off in the market.

[matt608]

Reviewing sharedrop theory:

Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.

You get share-dropped on in proportion to the perceived value of the demographic your coin represents.  It's the developer's choice.  It would be just as legitimate to do 10/10/10/10/10/10...10 and attract 10 diverse demographics, seven of which "deserve" nothing.

The simplest logic is to treat all three groups the same because they overlap anyway. This minimizes (obviously it does not eliminate) arguments about percentages.  All three groups get more than they "deserve". 

If you still want to argue, argue why your favorite demographic would give a bigger boost to the new DAC if its share of that DAC was somehow just a bit bigger.

I'm not going to make a fuss, but well reasoned criticism of important decisions shouldn't be discouraged.  Like code, all decisions will be tested at some point the sooner they are tested the better.  It looks like the decision has been made however so I'll keep it brief.

I favour 10/10/80 AGS/PTS/BTS

It probably makes no difference at all to the success of DevShares whether its 33/33/33 or 10/10/80.  The default position should be the one that favours BTS.  We did just give away half a billion BTS to AGS/PTS for the sake of getting (ex)i3 to be loyal to BTS alone.  They should be fighting BTS's corner in every sphere including sharedrops, without breaking past commitments, in which case 10% honours the social contract.

Why were half a billion BTS given away only to share drop 66% on them a month later?  It's not an even distribution at all - which is the aim because that maximises incentives - (you wouldn't do a giveaway where one half got $10 and half for got $1, you'd do $5 each). 

It *appears*, even if this is not the case, that the allocation is chosen based on maximising developer incentive who may have large PTS/AGS stakes, not market incentive for network effect, which is just the cover story.

*-Prepares package for head shipment-*

As someone who needs the votes of Toast, Stan + everyone, I hope people appreciate me not hiding behind a sock puppet to say potentially controversial things.  I am a BTS fighter.

[sparkles]

BTW if there were too many complaints it will just go 100% to BM. If you're arguing the allocation you're missing the point

I don't see any complaints yet - discussion. 

PS: Building 33/33/33 14 Dec snapshot allocation you will help Sparkle as well 

I approve and appreciate!

[bytemaster]

Latest Blog Post:

http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2014/12/19/The-Value-of-DevShares.html

[vikram]

The reason for this is to have a better end-of-life process allowing the code for retired mechanics to eventually be removed (instead of having to stick around forever in order to correctly interpret older blocks).

Part of the purpose of DevShares is exactly that we want to keep the legacy code same as in current BitShares, so we can test upgrading around it.

[clayop]

Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.

This week is Devshares week.

[Stan]

Reviewing sharedrop theory:

Allocations are not selected to be "fair", they are selected to attract the greatest amount of interest possible to a new offering.

You get share-dropped on in proportion to the perceived value of the demographic your coin represents.  It's the developer's choice.  It would be just as legitimate to do 10/10/10/10/10/10...10 and attract 10 diverse demographics, seven of which "deserve" nothing.

The simplest logic is to treat all three groups the same because they overlap anyway. This minimizes (obviously it does not eliminate) arguments about percentages.  All three groups get more than they "deserve". 

If you still want to argue, argue why your favorite demographic would give a bigger boost to the new DAC if its share of that DAC was somehow just a bit bigger.

[testz]

BTW if there were too many complaints it will just go 100% to BM. If you're arguing the allocation you're missing the point

I don't see any complaints yet - discussion. 

PS: Building 33/33/33 14 Dec snapshot allocation you will help Sparkle as well 

[testz]

'Social contract' says not less than 10% for new DACS.  DevShares isn't a new DAC, it's a BTS test chain.  It's part of BTS.  This logic is infallible because otherwise it means the developers are working on something that is not BTS, which they said they wouldn't do.  Therefore DevShares must be part of BTS, so there's no reason to give 66% of BTS test-chain shares to non-BTS holders. 

Is this unreasonable?

As a BTS test chain it should be 100% BTS, or 10% each to AGS + PTS for the sake of peace keeping, even though that in itself would mean it was a new DAC which is not supposed to be happening.

DevShares its a test network of new features of BitShares toolkit which used in all BitShares DAC's (Play, Music, PTS-DPOS). Any reason why DevShares should be allocated only to BitShares (BTS) owners?

[davidpbrown]

As a BTS test chain it should be 100% BTS, or 10% each to AGS + PTS for the sake of peace keeping, even though that in itself would mean it was a new DAC which is not supposed to be happening.

I thought we'd done with AGS/PTS and the value of those transfered to BTS albeit locked down.

Only if those old AGS/PTS values in BTS are not being acknowledged until they are released, should those BTS[AGS/PTS] values be acknowledged. Perhaps that's what is being suggested.. more accurately then BTS[PTS] and BTS[AGS].. in which case those allocations above should simply and only map directly to whatever the transfer snapshot into BTS was.. and then perhaps easier we all talk of 100% BTS.

[toast]

BTW if there were too many complaints it will just go 100% to BM. If you're arguing the allocation you're missing the point

[matt608]

DevShares will launch this week.  A snap shot of 33/33/33 AGS/PTS/BTS is being prepared by Toast. 

Why do AGS+PTS get 33%?  Isn't 10% the 'social contract'?

Look opposite, AGS and PTS brings funds to toolkit development, I think 50/50 AGS/PTS will be more fair than 33/33/33  AGS/PTS/BTS
PS: 'Social contract' says not less than 10%, 33% not less than 10%

'Social contract' says not less than 10% for new DACS.  DevShares isn't a new DAC, it's a BTS test chain.  It's part of BTS.  This logic is infallible because otherwise it means the developers are working on something that is not BTS, which they said they wouldn't do.  Therefore DevShares must be part of BTS, so there's no reason to give 66% of BTS test-chain shares to non-BTS holders. 

Is this unreasonable?

As a BTS test chain it should be 100% BTS, or 10% each to AGS + PTS for the sake of peace keeping, even though that in itself would mean it was a new DAC which is not supposed to be happening.

[clayop]

DevShares will launch this week.  A snap shot of 33/33/33 AGS/PTS/BTS is being prepared by Toast. 

Why do AGS+PTS get 33%?  Isn't 10% the 'social contract'?

Look opposite, AGS and PTS brings funds to toolkit development, I think 50/50 AGS/PTS will be more fair than 33/33/33  AGS/PTS/BTS
PS: 'Social contract' says not less than 10%, 33% not less than 10%

[testz]

DevShares will launch this week.  A snap shot of 33/33/33 AGS/PTS/BTS is being prepared by Toast. 

Why do AGS+PTS get 33%?  Isn't 10% the 'social contract'?

Look opposite, AGS and PTS brings funds to toolkit development, I think 50/50 AGS/PTS will be more fair than 33/33/33  AGS/PTS/BTS
PS: 'Social contract' says not less than 10%, 33% not less than 10%