Author Topic: You guys don't understand devshares.  (Read 19044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riverhead


As DVS is a test chain for BTS it makes sense to 100% drop to it. While other products (MUSIC, PTS, PLAY, etc.) may use the BitShares toolkit they will directly benefit from DVS.

A Share Drop is required with DPOS since there is no mining. However, the nature of DVS almost requires that the initial distribution be short lived and the ebb and flow of shares disincentivises people from hodling.


Offline mint chocolate chip


I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.

Suggest you update with the changes: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/update/2014/12/19/The-Value-of-DevShares/

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
I dont get why everyone is so fussed about the allocation of Devshares. Its a test chain and therefore not going to achieve a huge market cap, so why all the arguing? I say sharedrop generously to all the other communities that we want to make inroads to, such as Bitcoin.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 10:34:02 pm by speedy »

Offline davidpbrown

฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

sumantso

  • Guest

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.

+5%

Offline theoretical

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

I like this proposal.

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

+5% for using 11-05 snapshot.  TBH I'm not sure why we considered using the later snapshot.
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!

The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.

Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.

It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.



i don't care on the allocation on DEV! I don't expect much value in it for BTS or AGS or PTS holders. It is just experiemting stuff you don't want into BTS right now. So it "was" and is the best choice to allocate 100% to BTS anyway. This is clearly not a new chain, but a child of BTS.

Merger talk was exhausting enough! Let the dragons sleep.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile


I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 


Removing the 1% allocated to Vote?  This is surprising.  Is this a change in strategy after the Cali meeting?  Still a cornerstone of your marketing plans?

DVS only.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!

The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.

Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.

It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.

Thank you Bytemaster!

 +5%

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile


I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 


Removing the 1% allocated to Vote?  This is surprising.  Is this a change in strategy after the Cali meeting?  Still a cornerstone of your marketing plans?

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!

The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.

Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.

It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.

Thank you Bytemaster!

Offline bytemaster

I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!

The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.

Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.

It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.

I have been thinking about it some more and here is where I am leaning pending review:

100% BTS with the 2 year vesting period converted into a 2 month vesting period and removing the 1% allocated to VOTE. 

My reasoning is that with a 100% share drop on BTS that AGS and PTS both get their 10% using the 11/5 snapshot AND it is inline with my prior statements that honoring a chain that honors a chain is good. 

This way we are not "reallocating" anyones money and efforts to support the development chain are not seen as reallocating ownership. 

The dev chain will have very high dilution (10x BTS... 60% the first year... ) assuming current BTS owners vote to support delegates that take 100%.   

After a review I will write a blog post explaining the change and reason.   

Because this was a "retro-active" snapshot and DEV is not listed anywhere and has no GUI few should be harmed by changing this.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline davidpbrown

I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!

The cure-all surely is to note that there is a difference between what BitShares does and what third parties might/could/?should do.

Given what bytemaster has suggested about the background, perhaps [10% AGS; 10% PTS; and 80% BTS] is a simple best option for DVS.. though equally given DVS' role relative to BTS, 100% BTS clearly makes sense too.

It seems there are enough people arguing for PTS and certainly some, including perhaps the Chinese, who are keen AGS is still acknowledged; so, perhaps third parties in future can consider those and no-one should really expect 100% BTS would ever occur from third parties and perhaps some measure of the distance they are from centre BitShares will be reflected in the push to PTS/AGS.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline fuzzy

..
 +5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?

Everyone's investment in BTS should be proportionate to how successful they feel the BTS DAC will be.


People have also invested in AGS and will continue to invest in PTS based on how successful they feel future third party DACs (using the Bitshares protocol) will be. On the understand that the social consensus will mean they should get some stake in those future DACs.


I'm in favour of BTS. However I'm in favour of the free market and competition more. The idea that future Third Party DACs (some of which might be direct competitors of BTS) should feel obliged to sharedrop on another DAC (which is fundamentally all BTS is), is something I'd oppose regardless of my stake in BTS. Any snapshot onto BTS should be completely voluntary (i.e. not part of the social consensus) and the case should be made to developers that it's in their best interests to sharedrop on BTS as well as AGS/ PTS.


I think it's important that the principles of Bitshares should not be compromised because we happen to be believe in BTS and be heavily invested in it.

I actually tend to agree here...and by far my largest holdings are in BTS. 

Not providing significant incentive for 3rd parties to sharedrop on tokens like PTS/AGS make for a lack of decentralization in power.  Not only that, it also creates a lack of decentralization in one's portfolio. 

Now I am alllll in on DPOS because I feel it is by far the best protocol in crypto, but I would certainly like to see (someday) direct competitors to BTS.  How crazy is that?? I consider myself one of the most staunch of BTS fanboys!
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 06:20:07 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline bigt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
..
 +5%
10% AGS 10 % PTS and 80% BTS would make everyone (heavily invested in bts) happy.

I absolutely agree.

Everyone should be heavily invested in BTS. This is the BTS forum, right?

Everyone's investment in BTS should be proportionate to how successful they feel the BTS DAC will be.


People have also invested in AGS and will continue to invest in PTS based on how successful they feel future third party DACs (using the Bitshares protocol) will be. On the understand that the social consensus will mean they should get some stake in those future DACs.


I'm in favour of BTS. However I'm in favour of the free market and competition more. The idea that future Third Party DACs (some of which might be direct competitors of BTS) should feel obliged to sharedrop on another DAC (which is fundamentally all BTS is), is something I'd oppose regardless of my stake in BTS. Any snapshot onto BTS should be completely voluntary (i.e. not part of the social consensus) and the case should be made to developers that it's in their best interests to sharedrop on BTS as well as AGS/ PTS.


I think it's important that the principles of Bitshares should not be compromised because we happen to be believe in BTS and be heavily invested in it.