Angel Shares Feedback Requested

[fuzzy]

Pts has helped in all of the viral growth.  It taught us a lot about pow and invictus did manage to raise some money via pts. 

If we sold our pts at these low prices to fund development we would end up owning nothing and burn our wad.   We would also crash the price.

We want to increase pts value to maximize the gains pts provides without crashing the price.  Reallocating waisted resources seemed to be the best way to accomplish both goals.

It is very sad that burning wealth is seen as beneficial because of class envy and a desire to prevent anyone but amazon, power companies, and botnet operators from gaining.   

The movement against centralized powers needs all of the funding it can get and our whole community is shooting itself in the foot by burning our capital in non productive activity. 

We would use the funds in a transparent manner.  Not to pad our personal bank accounts. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do I not hear about the leveraging of a resource invictus has literally infinite FREE supply of?  Founder ID's (or perhaps newly minted alternative ID's that carry with them a sense of prestige) for getting the talent you need? 

If I am a student or professional with great talent who is just starting out...it would be a smart play to increase the value of my future work if I have a provable and prestigious contact ID through Invictus that PROVES I was instrumental in their success.  We sometimes need to stop thinking about the "Money" and remember that the value of "money" is a simple psychological perception. 

I have spoken with others (who I trust) and they tell me it is not possible, even if the blockchain code is forked, but I want to float it to the community just in case they were incorrect.

[bytemaster]

I support  contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in.  As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.

This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market.  Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you. 

Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't.     "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity.  That opportunity has passed now.

The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy.   I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.

Perhaps I am just too rational in how I view mining (as a miner).... I stopped mining and just purchased PTS and have long recommend others do the same.  I have since identified that mining does not result in decentralization (our primary goal) and have developed some proof-of-stake ideas that would make mining unnecessary for its original purpose (security). 

So now that we got 90% of the money supply back I want to maximize its value.

To claim that I am selling it (and keeping it as a profit) is to completely pervert the concept of investing.  Miners are selling it and keeping it as a profit, I am offering to spend 100% of funds received building and deploying DACs... how many PTS miners are willing to spend 100% of the profits they received re-investing in the ecosystem?   Most take their profits and buy new computers, tablets, and other toys for themselves.   

The elephant in the room here is that in the name of the 'little guy' who may mine perhaps 1% of future coins, the 'big miners' and "bot nets" will mine the other 99% for a profit and dump it.

So I think we can agree to ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as that will satisfy the 1% of PTS that would go to the little guy.  That contests and promotional activities are a better use for that 1% and that PTS holders and miners will have gained more as a result of these proposals than if we changed nothing.

[fuzzy]

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

Precisely.  Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable.   To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.

To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin.    So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?

Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways.  Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.

There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)

I really like what lighthouse is saying here. 

[Lighthouse]

I support  contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in.  As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.

This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market.  Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you. 

Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't.     "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity.  That opportunity has passed now.

The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy.   I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.

[bytemaster]

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

Precisely.  Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable.   To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.

To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin.    So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?

Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways.  Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.

There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)

I support  contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in.  As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.

[Lighthouse]

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

Precisely.  Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable.   To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.

To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin.    So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?

Which is why I'm not advocating mining, I'm advocating contests or giveaways.  Have a flash game created that walks you through the value proposition of PTS and Bitshares, when they complete the game and provide a PTS address they get a small amount of PTS, use http://www.rafflecopter.com/ to create giveaways that are easy to manage, yield data for Invictus, encourage viral spreading of the message and run them every week or two.

There are lots of ways you can do this without the inefficiencies of mining, I agree it's a waste of money but the purpose it serves is anyone can waste their money equally and most aren't consciously doing it (just running their or multiple computers, which is percieved as a cost you already incur with or without mining)

[bytemaster]

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

Precisely.  Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable.   To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.

To the extent that mining grows the network effect, this does add value to the coin.    So put yourself in the shoes of the DAC that is PTS and ask yourself how much equity you should give away for free through a process that destroys $100K per day?

[bytemaster]

I actually only started mining a week ago but I still see the input cost per share in that range for most people. I mined 2PTS for pennies worth of electricity this week then traded/purchased the rest of my shares. I missed the mining boat but had the idea that investment was still worth while because so many shares would still be minable over time. You are shutting out new investors in an effort to protect your current stake with this scheme.

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

I know many miners who only mine when it is profitable to do so.  The difficulty just adjusted by 2x and you are right that for people that are only paying for electricity it is profitable. 

The value of the shares is actually independent of what you do.  This would make the shares more scarce.  The argument that the shares are 'valuable' because people can get them below cost does not make any kind of economic sense.   

[Lighthouse]

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

Precisely.  Everyone acknowledges this increases the fundamental value of PTS (reducing supply without changing existing holdings) but that's not really necessarily or even desirable.   To succeed the project needs to be inclusive because inclusion is growth is value.

[bytemaster]

No one can accuse you of not fulfilling it, when you give them more.
If my landlord said i could have the flat next to mine, maybe even with a new door in between, i wouldn't consider that a break of contract from his side.

AngelShares can't get 90% of BTS, because you'd have to throw those 9 million shares away for pennies, or keep BTS centralized.

But if AngelShares ultimately end up to be 90% of the "last" dac no one can complain.

I think the number and the rate of distribution has to be calculated very carefully.
If you give out 100k AngelShares every week at current PTS course, that's 2 million dollars a week.
Do you really expect that to come in?
If not, price will fall rapidly.
If yes, what are you going to do with all that money? And do you think it will get more that's coming in to prevent price from dropping?

If I keep PTS unmodified and then launch Angel Shares then it would require an extra 2 million per week...
Currently the market is absorbing about $500K per week.
At vegas I had multiple people wanting to throw around millions.

Could we spend $2 million per week.... not initially... but once we had it in the bank I would hire the best managers I could to put together teams dedicated to the following DACs:

0) BitShares
1) DomainShares
2) LuckyShares
3) VoteShares
4) Keyhotee Video / Voice / Chat
5) APShares
6) ... other DACS proposed on this forum.....
7) Mobile Clients...

Obviously this would be too much for me or our small team to develop with existing funding, but by delegating development to many decentralized teams these things could be done in parallel.   In effect we would become a startup incubator for DACs. 

Having the right management team to do these things will be key.

[coyote47]

I actually only started mining a week ago but I still see the input cost per share in that range for most people. I mined 2PTS for pennies worth of electricity this week then traded/purchased the rest of my shares. I missed the mining boat but had the idea that investment was still worth while because so many shares would still be minable over time. You are shutting out new investors in an effort to protect your current stake with this scheme.

Bytemaster, you have explained that this move would be an effort to increase value for current shareholders. That value is set by market forces not energy costs. If new investors can't be lured into your ecosystem PTS lose their value. I have been purchasing Protoshares under the assumption that Protoshares were only the beginning and that the vast majority of stake in future projects would still up for grabs. Newcomers like me drive the price of PTS up. Energy costs have nothing to do with it.

[seraphim]

No one can accuse you of not fulfilling it, when you give them more.
If my landlord said i could have the flat next to mine, maybe even with a new door in between, i wouldn't consider that a break of contract from his side.

AngelShares can't get 90% of BTS, because you'd have to throw those 9 million shares away for pennies, or keep BTS centralized.

But if AngelShares ultimately end up to be 90% of the "last" dac no one can complain.

I think the number and the rate of distribution has to be calculated very carefully.
If you give out 100k AngelShares every week at current PTS course, that's 2 million dollars a week.
Do you really expect that to come in?
If not, price will fall rapidly.
If yes, what are you going to do with all that money? And do you think it will get more that's coming in to prevent price from dropping?

[que23]

i'll repost this, cause no one reacted - i think this solution would rule out most concerns mentioned here (except the ones not wanting invictus to get some funding)

Maybe the solution really is somewhere in having two assets. PTS decentralized as they were intended. AngelShares as Invictus fundraising but limited to 21 Millions, with a decreasing output every week.
In that way, no one can blame you for not honoring the social contract, because pts holders get at least 10% of every new dac.
Little guy can still mine pts for a while.
Invictus gets funds over a planned period of time, after which it should be able to work without that.
Value of pts isn't inflated.

This is probably what we will have to do politically.

I don't agree that it has to be this way. Are you afraid of the miners? And how are you breaking the social contract? You're moving from 10% to 100% of BTS. If anything, Angle Shares should get more than 100k a week to encourage more DAC funding.

I like how you think, and my primary commitment is to current holders of PTS to make sure I don't do anything to devalue them from their current price if I can help it.   Obviously there are some very major players (Amazon & Lighthouse) that are worried about public perception and I have a lot of respect for their opinion.  That said, I think 99% of the complaints can be resolved in a manner beneficial to everyone.   That is the point of this discussion.

I limited it to 100K per week because the market can only handle so much at a time.  Right now PTS has shown the market can handle about 75K per week and maintain a relatively stable price around $20.   Any more and I would risk devaluing PTS by flooding the market.

I understand your thought process. But everyone who is already in is in. And anyone else who would like in can do that through the Angel shares. Anyone who has PTS now should be holding on. If they're not, then they weren't believers. As for the 100k a week, that was when everyone thought there would be 21 million bitshares, not 2 million. Even an increase to 4 million shouldn't drop the price but increase it. Although I'm not an economist and I know I'm not calculating the confidence factor, I find it hard to believe that the price of protoshares isn't based on the potential of all the projects, especially bitshares.

[bytemaster]

And how are you breaking the social contract?

Not yet, but if 100k new shares would be issued every week it would permanently inflate pts holdings.

You don't want us to honor the original social contract because if we did then PTS would only get 10% of BitShares and AngelShares would get the other 90%. 

The problem here is that most people don't understand that having a smaller percentage of a larger pie is a good deal because you still end up with more pie.   Every time a company goes for a round of funding it dilutes existing shareholders and they do not complain because the dilution is in exchange for an infusion of capital. 

[seraphim]

And how are you breaking the social contract?

Not yet, but if 100k new shares would be issued every week it would permanently inflate pts holdings.