[Announcement]BitShares PLAY Crowdfunding

[xiahui135]

when btc drop to zero, who will pay for the lose?

Seriously?

yeah. The fund is to run the development and the community. the dev team need fiat to run normally. They have to pay dev salary, hardware and other expenses. If kept in fiat, all this may be controllable.
But keep the fund in btc is like the dev team invest on btc. It is too risky with much unkown situation.

[joele]

when btc drop to zero, who will pay for the lose?

Seriously?

[liondani]

when btc drop to zero, who will pay for the lose?

you can not complain about that, you did know these risks before you invested with your bitcoins...
That's why you probably invested X BTC and not 10 times the X value of BTC at that time, at least that was the case for me 

[xiahui135]

when btc drop to zero, who will pay for the lose?

[xiahui135]

Early investors get less play with the same CNY,  as the bitcoin drop.

[sumantso]

How much does the community's voice reflect in PLAY's strategy? Hackfisher is here but even he admitted he doesn't have much of a say.

When I see Bitshares, in my mind I make the connection of  BM style leadership and values, but we have to consider that this is a different group. I see cass and Fuzzy are listed on their team, so I will take their opinion on this matter.

[matt608]

Hackfisher, will you store funded BTC into bitCNY or bitUSD?

  

Definitely advise against holding funds in crazy BTC.

[boombastic]

Why don't use agsexplorer for crowfunding just curious

maybe the guy who made agsexplorer is tied up with other development work such as a Chinese social networking account for Bitshares faucet .

Yes, I was busy helping with faucet service recently.  This faucet service will be used for PLAY as well.

DACx.com will be specialized in crowdfunding and other value-added services around it.  Agsexplorer.com is third-party data monitoring service.  I prefer agsexplorer.com to remain independent and I believe it's better that way.

By the way, agsexplorer.com has been updated to monitor PLAY crowdfunding process.

[clayop]

Hackfisher, will you store funded BTC into bitCNY or bitUSD?

[Akado]

999 btc already, wow

[cn-members]

Why don't use agsexplorer for crowfunding just curious

maybe the guy who made agsexplorer is tied up with other development work such as a Chinese social networking account for Bitshares faucet .

[llildur]

Why don't use agsexplorer for crowfunding just curious

[matt608]

here is the link for the information

http://dacx.com/Play/index_en.html

Looking good! 

I suggest the "etc" be removed from the list of supporting sites.

[Shentist]

here is the link for the information

http://dacx.com/Play/index_en.html

[cass]

Really good start!!! 

[cass]

WOW great start 

40min = 160 BTC = $ 43,049.64

bam!

Congratz to PLAY team

[cass]

is PLAY presale also promoted via http://www1.agsexplorer.com/ !?

[liondani]

storing the funds in bitUSD, bitGOLD or bitCNY seems like a good idea, it will provide stability in regard to the invested funds and it is a great use-case to illustrate that market pegged assets work!

if they dare let them deal only with BTC

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[vladvlad]

  storing the funds in bitUSD, bitGOLD or bitCNY seems like a good idea, it will provide stability in regard to the invested funds and it is a great use-case to illustrate that market pegged assets work!

[clayop]

Well they could always collect the crowd fund in BTC and then store it in BitCNY.   This will do the most for BTS. 

Days like today are a good example of why storing the proceeds of a crowd sale in BTC is a problem.

Totally agreed. Great idea.

[liondani]

Well they could always collect the crowd fund in BTC and then store it in BitCNY.   This will do the most for BTS. 

Days like today are a good example of why storing the proceeds of a crowd sale in BTC is a problem.

I agree 100% with this idea/logic but I would recommend bitGOLD instead !!!  (even the investors would be impressed!!!)

[bytemaster]

Well they could always collect the crowd fund in BTC and then store it in BitCNY.   This will do the most for BTS. 

Days like today are a good example of why storing the proceeds of a crowd sale in BTC is a problem.

[donkeypong]

Agreed. The best way to support BTS may be not honoring BTC in PLAY but using bitAssets such as bitUSD and bitCNY for crowdfunding.

I agree. But only if this is possible with current limitations.

[clayop]

Agreed. The best way to support BTS may be not honoring BTC in PLAY but using bitAssets such as bitUSD and bitCNY for crowdfunding.

[liondani]

+5 for accepting all (BTC,bitUSD,bitBTC, BTS)

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[fuzzy]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

You are missing one vital fact....

ANY development that is made and works with the BitShares PLAY Chain will be easily transferrable to infrastructure that can be used by BTS.  So your point is actually kind of wrong.  If we had a 1000 altchains each with only a few serious Developers, they would still be essentially working part time for BTS, free of charge. 

This isn't even talking about the HUGE demographic of future BitShares Users that PLAY could funnel in after it has grown enough.  I am constantly floored by how many people see devs who want to build infrastructure for DPOS (just not under the main chain) as a threat.  I see them as a blessing--ESPECIALLY if they are sharedropping on us.

They'd be a lot more of a blessing if they accepted bitUSD and bitCNY for their crowdfunding.

Wouldn't it be fair to say this might be a significant hindrance if the wallet is still buggy for the majority of users? 

I can see something like an AGS style campaign where people can choose to invest BTC OR bitUSD, but until the wallet is polished and easy for every user, all I see is a bunch of new people having too difficult a time to invest and simply choosing not to.

Yes, I meant bitUSD and bitCNY in addition to BTC for the crowdfunding would optimize the ecosystem benefits.

This might be a good idea.  Still concerned that wallet is buggy at the moment though.

[onceuponatime]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

You are missing one vital fact....

ANY development that is made and works with the BitShares PLAY Chain will be easily transferrable to infrastructure that can be used by BTS.  So your point is actually kind of wrong.  If we had a 1000 altchains each with only a few serious Developers, they would still be essentially working part time for BTS, free of charge. 

This isn't even talking about the HUGE demographic of future BitShares Users that PLAY could funnel in after it has grown enough.  I am constantly floored by how many people see devs who want to build infrastructure for DPOS (just not under the main chain) as a threat.  I see them as a blessing--ESPECIALLY if they are sharedropping on us.

They'd be a lot more of a blessing if they accepted bitUSD and bitCNY for their crowdfunding.

Wouldn't it be fair to say this might be a significant hindrance if the wallet is still buggy for the majority of users? 

I can see something like an AGS style campaign where people can choose to invest BTC OR bitUSD, but until the wallet is polished and easy for every user, all I see is a bunch of new people having too difficult a time to invest and simply choosing not to.

Yes, I meant bitUSD and bitCNY in addition to BTC for the crowdfunding would optimize the ecosystem benefits.

[fuzzy]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

You are missing one vital fact....

ANY development that is made and works with the BitShares PLAY Chain will be easily transferrable to infrastructure that can be used by BTS.  So your point is actually kind of wrong.  If we had a 1000 altchains each with only a few serious Developers, they would still be essentially working part time for BTS, free of charge. 

This isn't even talking about the HUGE demographic of future BitShares Users that PLAY could funnel in after it has grown enough.  I am constantly floored by how many people see devs who want to build infrastructure for DPOS (just not under the main chain) as a threat.  I see them as a blessing--ESPECIALLY if they are sharedropping on us.

They'd be a lot more of a blessing if they accepted bitUSD and bitCNY for their crowdfunding.

Wouldn't it be fair to say this might be a significant hindrance if the wallet is still buggy for the majority of users? 

I can see something like an AGS style campaign where people can choose to invest BTC OR bitUSD, but until the wallet is polished and easy for every user, all I see is a bunch of new people having too difficult a time to invest and simply choosing not to.

[onceuponatime]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

You are missing one vital fact....

ANY development that is made and works with the BitShares PLAY Chain will be easily transferrable to infrastructure that can be used by BTS.  So your point is actually kind of wrong.  If we had a 1000 altchains each with only a few serious Developers, they would still be essentially working part time for BTS, free of charge. 

This isn't even talking about the HUGE demographic of future BitShares Users that PLAY could funnel in after it has grown enough.  I am constantly floored by how many people see devs who want to build infrastructure for DPOS (just not under the main chain) as a threat.  I see them as a blessing--ESPECIALLY if they are sharedropping on us.

They'd be a lot more of a blessing if they accepted bitUSD and bitCNY for their crowdfunding.

[fuzzy]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

You are missing one vital fact....

ANY development that is made and works with the BitShares PLAY Chain will be easily transferrable to infrastructure that can be used by BTS.  So your point is actually kind of wrong.  If we had a 1000 altchains each with only a few serious Developers, they would still be essentially working part time for BTS, free of charge. 

This isn't even talking about the HUGE demographic of future BitShares Users that PLAY could funnel in after it has grown enough.  I am constantly floored by how many people see devs who want to build infrastructure for DPOS (just not under the main chain) as a threat.  I see them as a blessing--ESPECIALLY if they are sharedropping on us. 

[biophil]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

Spoiler for you: it won't be money from the BTS community that drives up the price. Who here isn't already all-in on BTS? We won't see major increases in the BTS price until money starts coming in from outside.

[Ander]

So... January 5 to February 2, yet another period in which BTS will not go up, because the bitshares community is spending their money on yet another crowdsale instead of buying BTS.

[fuzzy]

Is it safe to say that this would be a good topic for the next hangout? 

Before we agree to bring it up, however, it is important that we say one thing:  If you have a complaint about how something is done, as opposed to trying to simply put it down, try to find a better alternative. 

For instance,
I think a crowdsale using bitBTC/bitUSD/bitCNY is a GREAT idea.  It helps with the problem Toast sees, which is everyday users who do not yet realize how many BitShares chains there are going to be, saying "why is bitshares always doing crowdsales?  haven't they done ____x already?" because then these people actually have to enter into the bitshares ecosystem to send money to the project.  In this process it becomes apparent you are sending to a separate project outside the bitshares flagship DAC. 

   

[cube]

If you are going to do a crowd sale it should be in BitCNY / BitUSD.   BTC is nice and liquid but is volatile and doesn't help the ecosystem nor help advertize the advantages of your base platform.

All of that said, I think you are much better off avoiding the crowd sale all together and returning all funds received.   From a regulatory perspective it is just too messy and adds unnecessary risk when we now have the option of funding via delegate pay.   In fact, from a regulatory perspective it would be wiser to launch a simple token like PTS and allocate 20% to you to sell as necessary to fund your operation and then upgrade. 

Delegate pay should also be a means to fund operation.

I do understand that BTC is a good crowd funding system because it can attract NEW money from OUTSIDE BTS which is much more than attempting to attract money from INSIDE BTS.   In fact raising money in BitUSD would probably result in them dumping all the funds raised for BTC so they can sell for CNY and fund operations.   So whether we do it or they do it, BTS must be dumped to invest in PLAY unless the developers of PLAY have incentive to hold BTS.

BM has highlighted the regulatory risks with crowd funding and it is wise to avoid it.  There are other ways to fund the project without getting into trouble with the law.

[matt608]

BTC is a better way than BTS or bitUSD for crowdfunding, because there are far more BTC users than BTS. Basically, if you are only a BTS holder, you don't need to invest PLAYSHARES, because PLAYSHARES will be distributed to BTS freely.  These 20% of PLAYSHARE is targeted more to BTC users, IMHO.

 

The more funds Play raises in the crowdfunding found, the more the sharedropped stake on BTS will be worth.  Not much investment will come from BTS as we already have a big stake, but lots of support will come from us.  Lets support the crowdfund to help PLAY get enough funding to be a success.

Join up to the forum on http://playtalk.org

[sumantso]

BTC is a better way than BTS or bitUSD for crowdfunding, because there are far more BTC users than BTS. Basically, if you are only a BTS holder, you don't need to invest PLAYSHARES, because PLAYSHARES will be distributed to BTS freely.  These 20% of PLAYSHARE is targeted more to BTC users, IMHO.

BTS holders are the primary ones who will be contributing. Besides, making BitUSD allows to avoid reduce tax hassles and also contribute to improving the peg and adoption.

[kuwaitee]

BTC is a better way than BTS or bitUSD for crowdfunding, because there are far more BTC users than BTS. Basically, if you are only a BTS holder, you don't need to invest PLAYSHARES, because PLAYSHARES will be distributed to BTS freely.  These 20% of PLAYSHARE is targeted more to BTC users, IMHO.

[joele]

BTC is a better way than BTS or bitUSD for crowdfunding, because there are far more BTC users than BTS. Basically, if you are only a BTS holder, you don't need to invest PLAYSHARES, because PLAYSHARES will be distributed to BTS freely.  These 20% of PLAYSHARE is targeted more to BTC users, IMHO.

[jwiz168]

BTC is already synonymous to cryptocurrency . But we want to have Bitshares to be known to all digital asset investors audience. Specially the gaming industry where Playshares will be at focused. Bitshares has the platform to convert fiat to BTS via BTC.  This is the way to make bitshares client actively doing the exchanges. It's fast and decentralized. Many will realize and appreciate how fast and secure DPOS can be. Transactions between DPOS blockchains are seamless and as most developers of Bitshares platform are convincing all along eliminate the middleman.  I don't mean to change the plan of BTC crowdfunding. Im just convinced that for Bitshares to potentially have much advantage over BTC  when crowdfunding occur with the same DPOS platform. 

[ripplexiaoshan]

BTC is a better way than BTS or bitUSD for crowdfunding, because there are far more BTC users than BTS. Basically, if you are only a BTS holder, you don't need to invest PLAYSHARES, because PLAYSHARES will be distributed to BTS freely.  These 20% of PLAYSHARE is targeted more to BTC users, IMHO.

[kickky]

1/130000 = 0.0000076923 btc

my questions is 1 pls seems to be worth a lot less with 20 billion.

so if ppl donate for the crowdfunding, it's more likely that they will not gain profits? am i rite?

[islandking]

This sucks...won't send a penny to you.

Mitao will piss in anyone cheerios on any day and provide no reasons.  I have come to see him as a true gem in this community.  Follow his cryptic words of wisdom, taste the urine as you crunch another spoonful into your mouth...or just ignore him

Haha! Interesting analogy.

[fuzzy]

This sucks...won't send a penny to you.

Mitao will piss in anyone cheerios on any day and provide no reasons.  I have come to see him as a true gem in this community.  Follow his cryptic words of wisdom, taste the urine as you crunch another spoonful into your mouth...or just ignore him

[clayop]

Is DACX reliable? Remember an example of Syscoin; they got screwed by moolah and long and wasting law case is still on process.

Regarding technical problem of TITAN, I partially agree on this. But I still believe that accepting bitCNY or bitUSD is better than BTC if the problem can be solved or abated.

[mitao]

This sucks...won't send a penny to you.

[script]

hello all

noob question here.

can you not make a asset on bitshares for PLS tokens , people can donate with bitcoin to a
 bitcoin address and after crowdfunding is over people can import there privatekey to a bitshares account
 and have there allocated PLS tokens in there account to trade with on the bitshares exchange.

[HackFisher]

If you are going to do a crowd funding campaign can you please do it on the bitshares platform and only accept bitUSD or even bitCNY. This would mean that the funds donated are kept in stable store of value. It also means that there will be greater demand for bitUSD and subsequently BTS. If the play platform is truly apart of the bitshares ecosystem why not fully utilize the advantages that bitshares provides?

If you are going to do a crowd sale it should be in BitCNY / BitUSD.   BTC is nice and liquid but is volatile and doesn't help the ecosystem nor help advertize the advantages of your base platform.

All of that said, I think you are much better off avoiding the crowd sale all together and returning all funds received.   From a regulatory perspective it is just too messy and adds unnecessary risk when we now have the option of funding via delegate pay.   In fact, from a regulatory perspective it would be wiser to launch a simple token like PTS and allocate 20% to you to sell as necessary to fund your operation and then upgrade. 

Delegate pay should also be a means to fund operation.

I do understand that BTC is a good crowd funding system because it can attract NEW money from OUTSIDE BTS which is much more than attempting to attract money from INSIDE BTS.   In fact raising money in BitUSD would probably result in them dumping all the funds raised for BTC so they can sell for CNY and fund operations.   So whether we do it or they do it, BTS must be dumped to invest in PLAY unless the developers of PLAY have incentive to hold BTS.

This crowdfunding is through dacx.com platform. I didn't pay any attention on this, logxing was communicating with the community and DACX, and know the reason better than me. My understanding from the communication with others is as following, the reason for not using model of crowd-hiring with PLS is that, people have family and bill to pay, they have faith in PLAY but have no choise but to sell the PLS for bitcoins/USD to pay the bills, this is not a tend that PLS holders would prefer. If there are ways to resolve this, I can agree and follow with bytemater's suggesion that the crowdfunding should be stopped. (PS: PLAY now is no longer an one-manned project, there are several entities promoting this project now, I only have one vote even if I would like to follow with bytemaster's approach)

It’s easier for investors who really have great faith in PLAY’s growth to invest because they only need to invest in the first week to receive the most bonus. Avoid competition like AGS holders.

It will let the market decide how much they think the whole project should be priced. Also, to guarantee the initial investors benefits but also guarantee a minimum amount of fund to operate and develop PLAY, we decided to set a cap for the fund that we are raising. So that each PLS won’t start too high a value and investors will get more gains in the value growth of Play.

Why not use BitUSD or BTS? The first one is for technical reason, because of TITAN, BTS is not good for participates to audit on hand at present, and a wide used and tested multi-signature feature is required too.
For Bitcoin, there are more holders, People are easier and more used to use Bitcoin to invest in these projects. So, in order to guarantee the benefits of all PLS holders, we decided to raise in Bitcoin. The reason not to use a user created asset like PTS for sale is similar to this, the reason for crowdfunding is for marking concerns too, to have more people who didn't have bts but are interested in play to participate. But please remember that you *SHOULD* always read the risk warning first, participate should treat it like AGS donations.

Some options might be converting the Bitcoins to BitCNY or BitUSD to resolve the concerns of volatility since BitCNY and BitUSD is perfect on this.

[clayop]

If you are going to do a crowd funding campaign can you please do it on the bitshares platform and only accept bitUSD or even bitCNY. This would mean that the funds donated are kept in stable store of value. It also means that there will be greater demand for bitUSD and subsequently BTS. If the play platform is truly apart of the bitshares ecosystem why not fully utilize the advantages that bitshares provides?

Support this idea too, by doing this BTS and PLS live together.

[ag]

crowd selling a portion of playshares is a good way to jumpstart development I would think, so I am for it. I'm not sure you can necessarily raise the same amount of funds in the same time period with dilution. Although if the DAC is going to use the bitshares codebase,  I do like the idea of a version 0.1 early release with basic functionality for exchanges to list. This would allow developers to start getting paid by playshares earlier rather than later... but I'm concerned that early dilution for developer pay, with no actual product yet, could be harmful to the share value.

if the crowd sale does happen I also strongly support the idea of crowd selling shares for bitUSD. Playshares would be reinforcing bitshares banking functionality by adopting bitUSD for the crowd sale. It would be a positive early sign to me... as a bitshares investor... that playshares wants to work with bitshares rather than compete against it in its current market niche.

[onceuponatime]

If you are going to do a crowd funding campaign can you please do it on the bitshares platform and only accept bitUSD or even bitCNY. This would mean that the funds donated are kept in stable store of value. It also means that there will be greater demand for bitUSD and subsequently BTS. If the play platform is truly apart of the bitshares ecosystem why not fully utilize the advantages that bitshares provides?

^^ This makes sense to me.   

[bytemaster]

If you are going to do a crowd funding campaign can you please do it on the bitshares platform and only accept bitUSD or even bitCNY. This would mean that the funds donated are kept in stable store of value. It also means that there will be greater demand for bitUSD and subsequently BTS. If the play platform is truly apart of the bitshares ecosystem why not fully utilize the advantages that bitshares provides?

If you are going to do a crowd sale it should be in BitCNY / BitUSD.   BTC is nice and liquid but is volatile and doesn't help the ecosystem nor help advertize the advantages of your base platform.

All of that said, I think you are much better off avoiding the crowd sale all together and returning all funds received.   From a regulatory perspective it is just too messy and adds unnecessary risk when we now have the option of funding via delegate pay.   In fact, from a regulatory perspective it would be wiser to launch a simple token like PTS and allocate 20% to you to sell as necessary to fund your operation and then upgrade. 

Delegate pay should also be a means to fund operation.

I do understand that BTC is a good crowd funding system because it can attract NEW money from OUTSIDE BTS which is much more than attempting to attract money from INSIDE BTS.   In fact raising money in BitUSD would probably result in them dumping all the funds raised for BTC so they can sell for CNY and fund operations.   So whether we do it or they do it, BTS must be dumped to invest in PLAY unless the developers of PLAY have incentive to hold BTS.

[clout]

If you are going to do a crowd funding campaign can you please do it on the bitshares platform and only accept bitUSD or even bitCNY. This would mean that the funds donated are kept in stable store of value. It also means that there will be greater demand for bitUSD and subsequently BTS. If the play platform is truly apart of the bitshares ecosystem why not fully utilize the advantages that bitshares provides?

[jwiz168]

It means they value BTC much, its really not a good method. Others also done this strategy,  giving their assets value. Why not choose BTS or BitBTC to be a crowdfunding medium as stated? In this way, DPOS technology will really be able to achieve what its purpose.... as Standard Blockchain Technology that is easily adapted.

[mdj]

Ugh =[

Another crowdsale under BitShares name. Dan was pissed when Music did a crowdsale.
I'd ask you use the name "playshare".

Agreed - it will confuse people too.

[islandking]

Based on this crowd sale you are valuing the PLAY DAC at 5-6 million.

[mf-tzo]

Instead of accepting only BTC can you guys accept also BitBTC? I would be more than happy to participate with some BitBTC. But BTC at the moment is a big hassle for some of us...

In order to send BTC we need to convert bitbtc to bts
transfer bts to an external exchange
sell bts for btc
transfer btc to my wallet which will take 1 day to synch (haven't used that thing for ages...)
send btc to playshares...

This is the reason I couldn't bother to participate in the Music crowdfunding as well.. We are all in for DPOS or not?

 

[toast]

Ugh =[

Another crowdsale under BitShares name. Dan was pissed when Music did a crowdsale.
I'd ask you use the name "playshare".

[logxing]

BitShares PLAY Crowdfunding

Bitshares PLAY's crowdfunding is set to start at 00:00 (UTC) 2015.01.05 till 00:00 (UTC) 2015.02.02 on DACX.com for a 28-day period. Investors can simply send Bitcoin to the specified address.

PLS(playshares) has a fixed amount of 2 billion, 20% (400 million) of which will be distributed for crowdfunding. For 1 btc, 100,000 PLS will be offered with a progressively decreasing bonus. For the first week, there will be a 30% of bonus;the second, 20%;the third, 10%;the fourth, none. The rest of the PLS that is not given out will be evenly distributed to investors of the previous four weeks (according to the proportion of the PLS they hold).

Simply put:
1st week: 1BTC=130,000PLS
2nd week: 1BTC=120,000PLS
3rd week: 1BTC=110,000PLS
4rd week: 1BTC=100,000PLS

When 3000BTC is gathered before 2015.02.02, the crowdfunding will be ended in advance. The BTC that is sent to the crowdfunding address will be given back to the sent address.

For example, if during the first week, 3000BTC is received, the crowdfunding will be ended with 390 million PLS distributed. Then the remaining 10 million PLS will be given to all that have participated in the crowdfunding, making 1 BTC with 133,333PLS of return. If in the end, the fund that is collected at the end of the 28-day raising period is less than 3000BTC, there will be more PLS left to give to the investors who have participated.

Due to the fact that the private key of Bitcoin is the only proof for the later distributed PLS's ownership,investors must send from where they control their own private keys (like wallets).

More detailed information will also be disclosed on DACX.com.

https://playtalk.org/index.php?topic=21.0