Author Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested  (Read 48496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gloine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Great feedbacks from community which is a driving force of our goal.

DAC is the DNA of 3i indeed, and one of our task is to help DACs obtain the initial funding to get start with DAC models in different industries simultaneously.

There are three layers of independent value proposition we could be classified as 1>3i. 2> existing PTS shareholders. 3> DAC founders and operators.  We shall make right decision with community together without mixing our roles or interests.

The question is that which one of the founding methods is the best for building longtime and healthier ecosystem.

3i will be succeed ONLY AND ONLY IF DACs are successful, THEN PTS shareholders will have enjoyed higher return on ROI over time.

How could we help DAC startups with initial funding?  We are open for any comments and suggestions.

Here goes my two cents...

Premining is one very transparent and valid option to give incentive to founding members as long as the public keys are known to the community and Invictus guarantees that there would be no transactions from those public keys for at least three years. There could be a public key for initial capital, too. It would be great if there would be a way to force this, e.g. the public keys are built into DAC clients so that the transactions from those public keys are allowed exactly three years from the launch of the service.

Also, there should be some way to take control of those keys back from founding members if they leave without satisfying the role. To achieve this, simply locking the transactions for three years would not be sufficient. There should be some hidden keys which are kept by Invictus and not known to the founding members and this mechanism should be baked into the client.

And there would be many other fancy options like adjustable vesting schedule and so on, to attract creative minds.

Regarding PoS, separating shareholders and employees would be important for the long term stability. Please note that shareholders don't live forever and they are not obliged to operate the system. The best way would be designing the system that exploits the maximum out of PoW workers' computing power.

Regards,
Gloine

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
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

I'm sold.  ;D
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline RejectKid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
    • Facebook Profile
seems like an interesting concept.  I am glad that there will be a 1:1 with PTS.   Now I'm just wondering how much I am truely going to havta invest to keep up with PTS2.0?  because as of now I have 1CPU mining and from start to now has gotten me ~288PTS.   For me energy costs wise that was only ~5$ - 6$.  So I'm guessing I would not get too many of the new PTS2.0. 

However on the otherside I do agree giving back to the community/company moving all this is the best option especially for very quick growth.  I just hope my future money and all people's money will grow fast then too.
PTS: Pu4ahefp2nMXeQw2cxome8g6V9B4faLx81 BTC: 1NcZg4xF9zSCNUpVanfwfMJY7kqAXtdrbu MMC: MWsdbnkdZRPNEQru1YeeATZTGmqhuSYFoN
Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/protoshare www.reddit.com/r/memorycoin

Offline seraphim

Although mining Protoshares with the hardware at home doesn't make a lot of shares any more, some people (like donschoe, or me) still do it because they believe in future profits. The electricity is paid anyways, and (at least in here germany) there's a final bill at the end of the year. I don't believe many of those miners would take 30$ a month and buy btc to get more pts.
There are others who don't pay for electricity because they have a "all-inclusive" contract (at university residential for example).
So it really would leave the small guy behind.

I don't think you'd break the social contract, at least not in the beginning. If I had 1k pts now, I knew I would have 0.005% of every upcoming dac. With the new idea I get more for dacs developed in the next 4 years. After that, I get less.

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.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 01:27:28 pm by seraphim »
Meet you on STEEM

Offline bytemaster

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
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 520Bit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Each and every day over $100,000 is being spent on mining PTS in the form of electricity or cloud computing costs.   This adds up to over $3 million per month.  In recent posts we have made the following observations:

1) Mining based upon resource consumption results in centralization.
2) Mining based security is more expensive than proof-of-stake based security and thus less profitable for a DAC and therefore the DAC would be less competitive.
3) DACs require money to be developed
4) Money is another kind of Proof-of-Work... right now we just prove that we burned it, what if we could use it to build the DAC?
5) The ideal mining pool would allow anyone to pay for 'servers' and receive a payout equal to their capital investment without any fees.

In light of these facts we would like to introduce a new model where you mine with your money rather than mine by burning your money.  Invictus would launch ProtoShares 2.0 that would honor all existing PTS and then mine 100K PTS per week.  To mine, you would send Bitcoin to the Angel address.   The 100K PTS would then be divided among those who contributed proportional to their investment.   The proof-of-work would be switched to the signature of our private key and we would set up a server to produce one block every 2 minutes.  As a result mining will still be proportional to work as measured by the money invested.  The more people the contribute the more difficulty mining becomes.

This new model will raise money for Invictus which we can then use to build out the half dozen DACs that will honor all PTS holders.   Instead of PTS holders getting 10% of new genesis blocks, they would get 100% of the genesis block.  We could implement this as a hard fork that would give everyone time to upgrade their wallets and it would be otherwise entirely transparent to holders of PTS.   

Existing PTS holders benefit because instead of being diluted by miners burning money, they get diluted by miners funding the development of DACs. 

Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.

Thoughts?

Sounds good. Saving energy, why not? As an investor, I only care about how my holding PTS can go up. When will Protoshares 2.0 be available?
Accept BTC/XCP/MSC: 152oBitoBwHwxR5UpUQnsvWSFjYHkheDJk
PTS: PtPXhrP5jk8BPH5fFcPnBgNSrfmJ6DCFcW
PPC: PRT95iQEKUzJSb2XsPjLgdbyoSyKiDmyb9

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
We can create a second class without changing pts at all.   Angle shares can be a 1:1 issue in new dac created by invictus. 

We thereby offer the best of both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you saying that you'd let pts run its course and start Angle shares alongside that? I regret spending all my money on PTS because it didn't benefit any DACs development at all.  :'(
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline boshen1011

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
  • Keyhotee ID:Bo
    • View Profile
Great feedbacks from community which is a driving force of our goal.

DAC is the DNA of 3i indeed, and one of our task is to help DACs obtain the initial funding to get start with DAC models in different industries simultaneously.

There are three layers of independent value proposition we could be classified as 1>3i. 2> existing PTS shareholders. 3> DAC founders and operators.  We shall make right decision with community together without mixing our roles or interests.

The question is that which one of the founding methods is the best for building longtime and healthier ecosystem.

3i will be succeed ONLY AND ONLY IF DACs are successful, THEN PTS shareholders will have enjoyed higher return on ROI over time.

How could we help DAC startups with initial funding?  We are open for any comments and suggestions.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 01:16:30 pm by boshen1011 »

Offline bytemaster

We can create a second class without changing pts at all.   Angle shares can be a 1:1 issue in new dac created by invictus. 

We thereby offer the best of both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
So, PTS2.0 would be a centralized coin owned by invictus. Terrible idea, I can already imagine people calling PTS2.0 (and ofc PTS) scam.

People already call Altcoins a scam and many of them are useless. Meanwhile, the premade mastercoin is getting heaps of money rained down on them to develop the future of the web. DACs provide a service. Although we may make money now from what Invictus is doing, in the future people will make money from using the services DACs provides.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline Lain

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
I  don't think it's a good idea though it is out of good purpose.Changing the social contract and making the supply of PTS centralized take a great risk.I think there should be a better way than this.
+1 for Hackfisher's comment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.

Thoughts?

This is one of your worst ideas ever. This would exclude anyone who is not rich as shit.

I dont have bitcoins, I dont have AWS or DO, all I have is my mining hardware at home.

So I guess people like me are the losers in this round.

Not that I don't sympathize, but miners are employees of the DAC. You're paid to keep the blockchain going. It's not really clear why it needs this service anymore. A DAC does have other work that needs to be done and with money, it can pay people to do it. If you have the skillset the DAC needs, then you could offer your services to it and then use the money to buy PTS.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
So, PTS2.0 would be a centralized coin owned by invictus. Terrible idea, I can already imagine people calling PTS2.0 (and ofc PTS) scam.

Offline gloine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
I am very new here but please state my opinion.

A limited number of shareholders would not protect you from future obstacles. You may gain a few million dollars for your initial development, but those who don't have the shares would turn to your enemies, with hundreds of millions of dollars to attack you in various ways.

Letting them take the portions as much as they want would let them help you in some way. You may feel like you (and initial participants) are losing control and those who have money are taking most of the gains, but please face it. They are already gaining everything and exploiting those with lesser resources.

You are making an environment where your gain is linear to the resources you have, however small you have. This thing being done in a transparent way is good enough for diligent people to grow up and smart people to innovate. This is really hard since without enough resources, you cannot even purchase a bitcoin from the exchange since they don't have credit cards and bank accounts.

And please think about whether people in Proof-of-Stake systems would invest enough resources to actually run the system. You need a really good incentive system to achieve this. Especially those with small stakes would not be able to run servers since they would not profit from doing that.


Regards,
Gloine

Offline 5chdn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • i wonder how many chars i can put in this field 50
    • View Profile
    • Votesapp
  • GitHub: 5chdn
Considering the number of people at Vegas looking to throw money our way, the most successful way to do so would be by capturing money currently being waisted at Amazon, DO, and your electric company.

Thoughts?

This is one of your worst ideas ever. This would exclude anyone who is not rich as shit.

I dont have bitcoins, I dont have AWS or DO, all I have is my mining hardware at home.

So I guess people like me are the losers in this round.