Author Topic: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!  (Read 26617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sumantso

  • Guest
Would be funny, aye?

1) Inflate BTS and give PTS free shares
2) Let them use the toolkit for free (even though it was AGS funds which paid for it)
3) Give them space on the forum so that they can attract the new users who have heard of BTS
4) Include them in the newsletter and give them further publicity
5) Award them 33% of Devshares, which may suck some value out of BTS
6) Dilute BTS for R&D and let PTS enjoy the results for free

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
This is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.

You are not the only one...This community used to be united...We used to have one goal and now we start dividing and competing... We have lost many early supporters and we create confusions all the time to new and old investors...

We better do something about that quickly or else we WILL become like the rest of the shitcoins out there and once we go down that road and get stigmatised like another coin that got pumped for 1 week after 1 year of waiting and dumped thereafter, then there is no coming back no matter how great BTS could have been...

Now this is the time to start building confidence again people...

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Bitshares has already cornered the bitasset market. We have 1 million bitUSD and decent liquidity. There is zero chance PTS will be able to threaten us in this area. Their lack inflation means they have no means to advertise the products to real users, and they will only ever appeal to investors who think there's a bigger chance it will get sharedropped on than BTS (which admittedly our own developers have now set a really bad precedent for - but we will be able to fix that easily).

Once we start getting gateways after 1.0 you'll see there's no chance they will catch up as a trading DAC.

Offline islandking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • The king of the island
    • View Profile
This is getting nuts. I am starting to doubt my investment.
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. - Satoshi

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
The jury is also still out   on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.

Well look at that. First, DPOS PTS is just an update to the POW PTS, nothing more. Then we are just interested in it because it is a non-inflationary store of value (but still gets to benefit off the technological development of BitShares paid for by dilution of BTS). And, now there is talks of perhaps adding BitAssets as well?

Your post perfectly shows what happens when we fork the community into a different token. No matter what people claim, human greed will always cause us to compete with one another. It is inevitable. People need to realize this and not just assume that PTS will aspire to nothing more than a small non-threatening sharedrop token that provides advertising for BitShares. Same goes for Sparkle by the way.

You are absolutely right about every DAC being a threat. If BitShares Music is a 'hit' it's possible that their BitAsset will easily surpass BTS and they could add more and take that market. Same goes for BitShares PLAY. As far as I know, whereas BTS still has to rebuild a lot of bridges to regain faith in the Chinese community who are far and away the biggest supporters, PLAY's reputation is still intact and they have a Chinese lead developer, so it's possible it will become very popular and displace BTS in other areas.

The consolidating network effect idea sounded plausible at merger time and I still think it was critical to have BM focused on one thing. (Him leaving BTSX would have crushed it imo and VOTE has low/no short term value, so BitShares could have been finished.) However I think BTSX is stronger on it's own blockchain, I think DNS is probably stronger on it's own blockchain too. I think BTS will struggle to define and market itself compared to bespoke blockchains and businesses.

So I don't think the solution is to chase off every other DPOS business but rather try get a stake in them as was the original plan. Create synergies where possible and cannabilise each other where not, hedge your bets. The only thing is that BM makes up such a big chunk of the value that him moving to another DAC, which you've correctly said, could be a potential competitor would crush whatever DAC BM was leaving unless he waited till it was at a much later stage of development, hence the need for one main BM focused BTS in that sense.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 08:27:31 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
The jury is also still out   on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.

Well look at that. First, DPOS PTS is just an update to the POW PTS, nothing more. Then we are just interested in it because it is a non-inflationary store of value (but still gets to benefit off the technological development of BitShares paid for by dilution of BTS). And, now there is talks of perhaps adding BitAssets as well?

Your post perfectly shows what happens when we fork the community into a different token. No matter what people claim, human greed will always cause us to compete with one another. It is inevitable. People need to realize this and not just assume that PTS will aspire to nothing more than a small non-threatening sharedrop token that provides advertising for BitShares. Same goes for Sparkle by the way.

 +5%

Exactly. This is getting nuts.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
The jury is also still out   on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.

Well look at that. First, DPOS PTS is just an update to the POW PTS, nothing more. Then we are just interested in it because it is a non-inflationary store of value (but still gets to benefit off the technological development of BitShares paid for by dilution of BTS). And, now there is talks of perhaps adding BitAssets as well?

Your post perfectly shows what happens when we fork the community into a different token. No matter what people claim, human greed will always cause us to compete with one another. It is inevitable. People need to realize this and not just assume that PTS will aspire to nothing more than a small non-threatening sharedrop token that provides advertising for BitShares. Same goes for Sparkle by the way.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile


If you are going to announce a DAC distribution for something you think the market will give a reasonable value, then you can be reasonably confident that a <$5 million DAC will respond positively to the news vs. a large DAC who's overall value may not move noticeably.

Devs can also acquire a larger % long term stake for less by share dropping on a lower stake coin.

Therefore it's very likely some developers will continue to sharedrop on DAC supportive lower CAP coins too. PTS will be the market leader in that price range as it has proven to be a market acceptable sharedrop token.

This is true.  But it's basically arguing that because PTS is easily manipulated, it's a good sharedrop target becasue Devs can sneak in a higher allocation to themselves using the insider info about the drop.  If the investor population was educated about this, dropping on PTS would be seen as blatent manipulation and a dishonest move.  As you say BTS price is less effected by sharedrop announcements so it forces dev honesty in terms of how much they will get themselves. 

The bigger the market cap, the less important the insider info is.  In future drops devs wont be able to get away with low market cap drops without having to undergo the scrutiny of why they chose to drop on a coin so easily manipulated.

Maybe we should demand that our delegates only use a new 100% BTS sharedropped testnet for testing. They do work for us after all. 3rd party devs are free to use whichever testnet they prefer then, the current PTS/AGS testnet already exists and won't go away.

 +5% 

And agreed with politeness + not being pitch forky. 

Disagreements must be encouraged to be shared and discussed, in order to prevent centralisation in thinking.  We are the roots of the BitShares tree, we must extend out far in different directions to build a firm foundation for healthy growth, dependency on any leaders is a weakness.  Diversity within an ecosystem is strength.  We don't want to create competing DACs, but we do want ideas to compete within BTS.

Good analysis. Medium to long term, I'm sure PTS will hope to have a much high value though.
So it gets to be the sharedrop choice because it's been so far and because it currently has the advantages I mentioned and then in future even as it's value grows it keeps that position as it's now the de facto DAC savvy sharedrop token.

Whereas the last PTS was a hollow vessel, slow as hell POW, PTS will be a profitable no inflation DPOS with it's own leaders, principles and vision.  So the Sharedrops will be an advertisement that brings in potential new customers and it can hopefully also become a valuable crypto-currency in its own right.

As the no.2 DPOS like LiteCoin or Stellar it may get to track BTS's success and if BTS fails for reasons other than technical, PTS may have a chance of replacing BTS. (At $200 million CAP BTSX would have had a respectable budget just from fees and once the key development is done over the next 24 months that may be sufficient to maintain a competitive, profitable blockchain. The jury is also still out   on whether people want an all bells and whistles blockchain to store value or just a robust BitAsset focused, limited changes blockchain backed by a no inflation crypto-currency. In which case PTS may mainly just need to add BitAssets in the future.)

Offline islandking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • The king of the island
    • View Profile
I think PTS needs to be removed from the Bitshares forum. It will just cause confusion for new people coming to our community.
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. - Satoshi

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
@arhag, they're rebranding to drop the BitShares at least, and changing the name possibly to protons  but still keeping the PTS ticker.

http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=109.0

That's good. I will give them credit for that. And they have their own forum too.

Bitsapphire runs the forum. alphabar PTS is here either due to to the majority being in favour of it or Bitsapphire being unaware of the new situation. Tell them to remove that subsection and see what happens; this is one topic for which BM can't be faulted for.

That's fair. I don't blame bytemaster for that part. And since they have their own forum, I think it would be appropriate for us to put the the BitShares PTS subsection into the graveyard (with an "(Obsolete)" next to it), post a sticky post pointing them to the new forum, and lock down that subsection.

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
We're already late for 1.0 protocol and the "big thing" , and we're still wasting valuable time and peace for a PTS that was supposed to be dead .

If PTS is so good , why kill it in the first place ?
If I3 is really done with PTS , then why its people keep dancing around it ?

What's going on , guys ? Something I'm missing here ?

Calm down... :p

1.0 protocol (i.e. No more hardforks for 6 months) is hopefully on track to be ready by late jan/feb. At that point we can begin gateway integration, which we have many leads for and the marketers are ready to push. Advertising will begin in January with plans both for banner ads on TOR, reddit, CMC, coingecko and maybe some btc news sites. There's also plans for bitcointalk signature ads. There's also people working on finally making bitshares.org ready for new users.

This entire PTS/DVS issue I think is just a misguided attempt at damage control (since there was so much backlash when the merger first happened). I think I3 assumed the way it currently is would cause the least drama, but obviously they're wrong since BTS holders already paid to become the primary bitshares DAC. The DPOS PTS is not under the control of I3, they cannot possibly prevent it, so all we should focus on is to make sure it gets no official support. We as stakeholders can make enough noise about it and make sure it gets fixed, it's nothing to worry about in the long term.

Things are honestly looking pretty good for bitshares. With the recent addition of the faucet it is now finally easy to sign new users up, so after the holidays our marketers can  begin to get the ball rolling. We're already seeing progress, in fact right now a bitshares post is on the frontpage of /r/bitcoin.

I know great work is being done as we speak , and I'm proud to say that I'm one of the people doing some of it . (wait for it .....)

But one more PR problem would let all that good work be in vein . People are hard to be impressed by the good things , but easy to be impacted for even one small bad thing .

We've seen that in these three months .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline islandking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • The king of the island
    • View Profile
I agree with what people in this thread are saying.

This whole PTS thing is being handled poorly in my opinion.

The sharedrop to AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS was so that we could keep bytemaster directing his attention to BTSX (now BTS). I just want to be clear about this. If we didn't need bytemaster, we didn't really need to do the sharedrop. AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS were all so small in market cap that BTSX could have easily poached their devs (toast) and FMV using diluted delegate pay and easily out-competed them without having to inflate 25% of the supply. Even if some early compensation was needed to get key talent on board, it would have cost us much much less than a 25% dilution. While it would be nice to have AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders join our community rather than have to compete with them, as we have all seen with the new PTS, it isn't even possible to avoid competition even after donating a generous sharedrop to them.

Bytemaster needed the sharedrop to occur to be a good honorable person to the people (AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders) that he made his promises to (not legally binding of course). These holders acquired their positions because they provided (or fairly acquired it from people who provided) the AGS funds that made (and is still helping make) this project possible. Since bytemaster is worth so much to this community and that was his condition for directing his complete attention to BTS, the BTSX community accepted this compromise.

But now a lot of the actions that bytemaster seems to be supportive of seem to be going against the deal we made. The reason this particular version (33%/33%/33% to AGS/PTS/BTS) of DevShares would have any significant value is because it has the support of the core devs (including bytemaster). If he refused to work on that version (if he shunned it) and instead worked on a version of DevShares that allocated 100% to BTS, this community would likely not care that some third-party dev was doing their own DevShares with whatever allocation they choose. There may be a lot of reasons given for why the allocation of DevShares makes sense according to the not-yet-well-developed sharedrop theory. But the most important reason that seems to be ignored by bytemaster and Stan is that by allocating anything at all to AGS and/or PTS, they are giving these tokens credibility when the BTS community (whose interest they need to be looking after according to the Nov 5 sharedrop deal) clearly does not want these tokens to continue taking attention away from BTS. By the way, I should clarify that I am not actually concerned about DevShares in particular having a significant market cap and taking investment away from BTS, but from the perspective of principles, it is still inappropriate in my opinion for the BTS community to allocate anything any longer to AGS/PTS.

PTS is particularly troubling. It has been upgraded to DPOS, trading on exchanges, and it is still calling itself BitShares PTS on coinmarketcap and our forum. This is just going to confuse new investors. How would we feel if some new coin (ALT) cloned the BitShares technology didn't allocate anything to AGS/PTS/BTS, and called itself BitShares ALT on coinmarketcap? I think that would be deserving of shunning by this community. I certainly don't think we should have prominent members of the BTS community discussing how ALT was a great sharedrop token, or how they recommended that a project created within the BitShares ecosystem should allocate anything to ALT, or even give them a subsection in our forum advertising their existence to people visiting our forum after just learning about BitShares.

It doesn't matter what the history of PTS was. It doesn't matter if it helped give us the BitShares toolkit (although I don't really understand how it did by the way). As of the November 5 sharedrop, PTS should be treated no differently than ALT by the BTS community. The sharedrop should have brought over the community members we want and who are interested in the success of BitShares. Anyone left holding PTS after that is just wildly speculating for future profits no differently than how people speculate on any other random altcoin. They are absolutely free to do so, but the BTS community shouldn't be helping them out by giving this new PTS (which should have nothing to do with the BitShares ecosystem anymore) any credibility. Same too goes for AGS (even though those holders actually did help fund the BitShares toolkit), because they also already got their fair share from the November 5 sharedrop.

/rant and Merry Christmas :P

 +5%
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. - Satoshi

sumantso

  • Guest
Bitsapphire runs the forum. alphabar PTS is here either due to to the majority being in favour of it or Bitsapphire being unaware of the new situation. Tell them to remove that subsection and see what happens; this is one topic for which BM can't be faulted for.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Well said rune. It's pretty shocking to me that the devs still haven't realized just how bad of an idea sharedropping DVS to them really was. What can you do except vote against it I guess, but I doubt that'll have an impact at this point.

Sometimes it truly does feel like the devs don't have the full interests of BTS in mind...as matt608 put it, they're freelancing to help competitor chains -- PTS in this instance.

What a joke.

Oh, I missed that they gave DevShares to PTS. I own a lot of PTS for other reasons, so I'm biased for it. But yes that was an obviously poor business decision that DVS dropped to PTS.

If it wasn't for the Chinese PR team, BTS could already be much more seriously impaired as a viable business and this just gives them one more problem.

@arhag, they're rebranding to drop the BitShares at least, and changing the name possibly to protons  but still keeping the PTS ticker.

http://pts.cubeconnex.com/index.php?topic=109.0
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 06:20:43 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I agree with what people in this thread are saying.

This whole PTS thing is being handled poorly in my opinion.

The sharedrop to AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS was so that we could keep bytemaster directing his attention to BTSX (now BTS). I just want to be clear about this. If we didn't need bytemaster, we didn't really need to do the sharedrop. AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS were all so small in market cap that BTSX could have easily poached their devs (toast) and FMV using diluted delegate pay and easily out-competed them without having to inflate 25% of the supply. Even if some early compensation was needed to get key talent on board, it would have cost us much much less than a 25% dilution. While it would be nice to have AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders join our community rather than have to compete with them, as we have all seen with the new PTS, it isn't even possible to avoid competition even after donating a generous sharedrop to them.

Bytemaster needed the sharedrop to occur to be a good honorable person to the people (AGS/PTS/VOTE/DNS holders) that he made his promises to (not legally binding of course). These holders acquired their positions because they provided (or fairly acquired it from people who provided) the AGS funds that made (and is still helping make) this project possible. Since bytemaster is worth so much to this community and that was his condition for directing his complete attention to BTS, the BTSX community accepted this compromise.

But now a lot of the actions that bytemaster seems to be supportive of seem to be going against the deal we made. The reason this particular version (33%/33%/33% to AGS/PTS/BTS) of DevShares would have any significant value is because it has the support of the core devs (including bytemaster). If he refused to work on that version (if he shunned it) and instead worked on a version of DevShares that allocated 100% to BTS, this community would likely not care that some third-party dev was doing their own DevShares with whatever allocation they choose. There may be a lot of reasons given for why the allocation of DevShares makes sense according to the not-yet-well-developed sharedrop theory. But the most important reason that seems to be ignored by bytemaster and Stan is that by allocating anything at all to AGS and/or PTS, they are giving these tokens credibility when the BTS community (whose interest they need to be looking after according to the Nov 5 sharedrop deal) clearly does not want these tokens to continue taking attention away from BTS. By the way, I should clarify that I am not actually concerned about DevShares in particular having a significant market cap and taking investment away from BTS, but from the perspective of principles, it is still inappropriate in my opinion for the BTS community to allocate anything any longer to AGS/PTS.

PTS is particularly troubling. It has been upgraded to DPOS, trading on exchanges, and it is still calling itself BitShares PTS on coinmarketcap and our forum. This is just going to confuse new investors. How would we feel if some new coin (ALT) cloned the BitShares technology didn't allocate anything to AGS/PTS/BTS, and called itself BitShares ALT on coinmarketcap? I think that would be deserving of shunning by this community. I certainly don't think we should have prominent members of the BTS community discussing how ALT was a great sharedrop token, or how they recommended that a project created within the BitShares ecosystem should allocate anything to ALT, or even give them a subsection in our forum advertising their existence to people visiting our forum after just learning about BitShares.

It doesn't matter what the history of PTS was. It doesn't matter if it helped give us the BitShares toolkit (although I don't really understand how it did by the way). As of the November 5 sharedrop, PTS should be treated no differently than ALT by the BTS community. The sharedrop should have brought over the community members we want and who are interested in the success of BitShares. Anyone left holding PTS after that is just wildly speculating for future profits no differently than how people speculate on any other random altcoin. They are absolutely free to do so, but the BTS community shouldn't be helping them out by giving this new PTS (which should have nothing to do with the BitShares ecosystem anymore) any credibility. Same too goes for AGS (even though those holders actually did help fund the BitShares toolkit), because they also already got their fair share from the November 5 sharedrop.

/rant and Merry Christmas :P
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 05:54:43 pm by arhag »