AngelShares revisited [Feedback Required]

[luckybit]

My views are known. There has to be a cap. We should not be discussing in 10% of this or 90% of that. How many Bitshares should there be? I say it should be as scarce as possible. No more than 6 million. It has to be at least 3 million to include Angelshares and all of the Protoshares. We want our shares to appreciate as much as possible with the least amount of dilution while also promoting development and marketing.

[cogitativecurve]

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
     --Benjamin Franklin

It is hard to look past the implication that Inviticus still intends a noose party for ProtoShares investors.

ProtoShares ownership was shown by example to define 100% of share ownership in the genesis block of each Inviticus DAC. The ownership stake is promised to be 10% of total projected money supply for the Inviticus DAC. 90% of the money supply for BitShares was to be brought into circulation though mining rewards over a 10 year period. ProtoShare owners are promised 10% of the total money supply of each DAC regardless of how quickly DAC shares are brought into circulation and who benefits from them, but Inviticus is in questionable territory if it intends to say that anything but ProtoShare ownership will soon get you DAC ownership in each genesis block. ProtoShares had been sold as THE way to obtain genesis block ownership. AngelShares (or variant) should be about securing a stake in ProtoShare benefits rather than competition for what was supposed to be a benefit exclusive to ProtoShares.

Discussion related to the elimination of mining-based rewards has focused on who is to control the 90% of the total money supply that would have been mined. It is also important to know how quickly that 90% is to enter circulation. If Inviticus intends to put part of that 90% into the genesis block or intends to flood the market with shares shortly after genesis then that has a significant material effect on the short term value of DAC ownership by way of PTS ownership. The way I currently read it, Inviticus can cleverly undermine the short term value of ProtoShares without a technical violation of the social contract for ProtoShares, but the policy does affect current PTS value and it is important that any proposal for Inviticus DACs clearly show how the money supply in circulation is to be changed over time so that investors can make informed decisions. Clarification is needed.

This revisit of the AngelShares by que23 has changes in style and detail. The neglected details can be as harmful to investor value as the original AngelShares ideas by bytemaster. It speaks volumes that the investment offered in Vegas had not increased ProtoShares value or trade volume and that the first ideas originating from the Vegas conference were to make ProtoShares a rapidly depreciating stake in ownership. Be mindful of your own warning about being hung together.

Invictus Innovations' focus has, thus far, been on how to benefit ProtoShares holders. This is, ostensibly, only going to be solidified by the instantiation of Invictus' plans, and other DACs making use of this opportunity.  As ProtoShares' holders are implicitly entitled by social consensus to what emanates from them, it is to be hoped that no entity will cause their own implosion by deviating from what should be the utmost of imperatives: Before all else, secure the inherent right of profit to the progenitor of ALL future DACs, ProtoShares. Failure to comply with this will result in widespread distrust of the dissenting DAC, wherever it may spring from. That being said, I have seen only evidence of massive thought, work, and care being put into the honoring of ProtoShares, and see no sign of this being discontinued. Indeed, I see Invictus investing a lot of thought into making sure that it is, in fact, mandatory and secure. Cheers.

[threepoint14]

It is true that there is a time-value of money issue at play here.   PTS owners were expecting to be devalued by 90% over 9 years.  It seems they have removed the mining schedule from the white paper, but if I remember correctly it was linear decay every block.

Based upon the BTS mining schedule, about 4 million would have been mined in the first year and 2 million in the first 6 months and 1 million in the first 3 months.  In the second year another 3+ million would have been mined diluting PTS holders down to 20% or less.

As holders of PTS our stake in BTS would have been cut from 100% in genesis block to 25% after less than 1 year.  I believe Invictus is merely proposing that this dilution occur through funding and not through mining.   In the process they were proposing that we be given 3x or more guaranteed stake.

AngelShare investors are unlikely to dump their new BitShares right after launch when they haven't even had a chance to realize the maximum growth period in the first 6 months.    I could see an argument that would prevent AngelShare holders from selling for 3 months to simulate the mining delay that existing PTS holders were expecting.

PTS is liquid, AngelShares would be illiquid and thus they have completely different investment considerations.
   

[Liberty]

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
     --Benjamin Franklin

It is hard to look past the implication that Inviticus still intends a noose party for ProtoShares investors.

ProtoShares ownership was shown by example to define 100% of share ownership in the genesis block of each Inviticus DAC. The ownership stake is promised to be 10% of total projected money supply for the Inviticus DAC. 90% of the money supply for BitShares was to be brought into circulation though mining rewards over a 10 year period. ProtoShare owners are promised 10% of the total money supply of each DAC regardless of how quickly DAC shares are brought into circulation and who benefits from them, but Inviticus is in questionable territory if it intends to say that anything but ProtoShare ownership will soon get you DAC ownership in each genesis block. ProtoShares had been sold as THE way to obtain genesis block ownership. AngelShares (or variant) should be about securing a stake in ProtoShare benefits rather than competition for what was supposed to be a benefit exclusive to ProtoShares.

Discussion related to the elimination of mining-based rewards has focused on who is to control the 90% of the total money supply that would have been mined. It is also important to know how quickly that 90% is to enter circulation. If Inviticus intends to put part of that 90% into the genesis block or intends to flood the market with shares shortly after genesis then that has a significant material effect on the short term value of DAC ownership by way of PTS ownership. The way I currently read it, Inviticus can cleverly undermine the short term value of ProtoShares without a technical violation of the social contract for ProtoShares, but the policy does affect current PTS value and it is important that any proposal for Inviticus DACs clearly show how the money supply in circulation is to be changed over time so that investors can make informed decisions. Clarification is needed.

This revisit of the AngelShares by que23 has changes in style and detail. The neglected details can be as harmful to investor value as the original AngelShares ideas by bytemaster. It speaks volumes that the investment offered in Vegas had not increased ProtoShares value or trade volume and that the first ideas originating from the Vegas conference were to make ProtoShares a rapidly depreciating stake in ownership. Be mindful of your own warning about being hung together.

[phoenix]

First of all, we shouldn't support any DAC that doesn't distribute at least 10% of the shares to original PTS holders. I definitely think that we should support angelshares if we want a developer to work full-time, and that could go up to 90% of the DAC. I also like Ourshares, but not at 90%. Perhaps a 20-30% maximum could go to Ourshares? Bountyshares are a must if we want the development to be more decentralized, and that could also go up to 90%. I realize that no one DAC could have all of these maximums, but a mixture of them would be the best way to go.

[coolspeed]

so it's a poll?

I prefer BountyShares.

[que23]

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
     --Benjamin Franklin

Everyone holding ProtoShares is part of a movement to decentralize the web. If you haven't considered the ramifications of decentralizing the web, do so now. DACs know no boarders and yield to no authority. DACs will bring people from all over the world with similar interests,especially financial, together--true globalization. The decentralized web will deliver what the internet revolution promised to deliver but has yet to fulfill--true freedom. Until  now, we've all been traveling the web as ghosts, disembodied joyriders with no substance. Keyhotee promises to animate us, to make us whole. We will have a name, a reputation, a wallet and our wits. We will be solid. However, this is just the start. Although Keyhotee will make us three  dimensional, we will still be floating in cyberspace with no ground beneath our feet and no home. We need DACs.

The life blood of the DAC project is ProtoShares. It's the campfire everyone who believes in the movement can gather around. ProtoShares is also a honeypot. It attracts likeminded people and hopefully likeminded developers.

Invictus will go down in history for their contributions to the movement,no doubt, and they still have an important role, but currently it might be better if we started to think of them as any other DAC team. Our goal, as PTS holders, is to see to it that DACs are built. There are a lot of really good DAC ideas on the forum. But we have to ask ourselves, how are we going to help get these projects off the ground? Is it enough to just say to DAC builders, "We are community, join us!" or should we be trying to make ourselves look more attractive. How can we show new teams that we are a group of people who can help a project succeed and that we are indeed building the future of the web.

Like some of you, I am considering putting together a DAC team. And once you start looking through the eyes of a DAC team, you start to ask yourself, how is this community going to help me?

One way we can help, is to lay down a good plan for building DACs.

The strategies below are all ideas that new teams might or might not want to do. Note, I'm not asking the community if these ideas are good ideas or about legal considerations, I'm asking if we will support DAC builders who want to use these ideas. All the ideas below include the social promise of honoring the original ProtoShares.

New ProtoShares--Attracting miners
If a new team wants to release their own ProtoShares, good for either all their projects or for each DAC, will we support this? Will we support this if they wanted 90% of all shares of their DAC to be distributed in this way?


AngelShares--Funding Engine
DAC builders need to eat. Their families need to eat too. Will we support a team that wants to have AngelShares? Will we support them if they want 90% of their shares to come from AngelShares?

OurShares--Developer Rewards
It seems odd to tell the parents of a DAC that if they want a stake, they will need to use their food money to buy PTS or AngelShares. PTS holders and AngelShare holders should be happy that the team believes in what they are doing and do what they do for their own benefit as well as others. Will we support a team who wants to have OurShares? Will we support a team who wants to distribute their DAC's shares with 90% OurShares.

GiveawayShares--Marketing
If a team wants to attract people outside the crypto community by giving away shares, will we support this?

BountyShares--Work/Community Building/Early Adopter Rewards
Will we support a team who distributes shares for work done on the project?

LotteryShares--Fun/Marketing
Will we support a team who sets up a way to randomly distribute shares in a DAC?


Post Release Mining
Will we support a team that wants their DAC shares to be mined after its release? Would we support a team who wanted to distribute 90% of the shares in this way?