Author Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested  (Read 48490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HackFisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
My suggestion to the model, PTS2.0 should be another ProtoDAC to honor  and map Invictus DACs, e.g. 100%

But the social contract and commitment of PTS1.0 should not change, for easy understand, PTS 2.0 should honor 10% of it, thus, exsiting PTS can gain 1:10 (10%) of Invictus-Dac.

Then, the total supply is important and should be fixed. The mining rewards shoud careful designed, and have a way to make people trust it.

This is only my suggestion to the improvement, absolutely not the best.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 12:44:29 pm by HackFisher »
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
I don't know. I've been thinking about this all day. I think that Bitshares can't compete with Mastercoin or Ripple without greater investment. Mastercoin and Ripple have a lot of money. Invictus needs more to accelerate and money is being wasted towards mining. And Bytemaster is talking about making our PTS more valuable. I think there are questions that need to answered, but we might be crazy to turn this down.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company.  What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs?

The power companies serve the same value for coins as earth does to the supply of gold. I could ask you what the value of something is that came to you for nothing. DeBeers created a market for diamonds by way of controlling the supply. The value of diamonds is because they are artificially hard to acquire and there is clever marketing. One way to increase the value of PTS is to make them more difficult to mine--which is the opposite of rapidly increasing the supply.

It is useful to have a slowly increasing supply to bring an incentive for exchange. A rapidly increasing supply is no better than what the government does with fiat. A rapid increase in supply causes rapid exchange as people seek better investments to hold. Government gets to maximize exchange tax revenues, but people that exchange their fiat get fleeced and eventually the currency is abandoned.

You want to transform the cost of supply into a more productive one (which is a worthy goal). You did not stop there though. My reading of your proposal sees a rapid increase in supply that undermines the value of existing investment and causes a destructive consolidation of ownership. Your careful selection of short-term benefits to PTS investors ignores the full picture by which you expect value to come to Inviticus. The value to Inviticus comes from somewhere, and that is from the potential profits that investors banked on. By expanding the 2M supply limit and simultaneously increasing the supply rate you'd undermine existing PTS value. The economy you intended to form seemed to contain a financial incentive to invest in the worst DACs to just retain a percentage of PTS ownership.

I see your proposal as highly subjective. I don't see that you'd propose a change like this if you owned more PTS.

New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them.  They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.

My understanding is that you build a list of Angel investors so that they can help out. You have not revealed your plan for that. Investors should be smart enough to realize that helping DACs form would return value. At this point we are probably all wondering how to help though.

MemoryCoin2 didn't seem to need advance assistance but other DACs would. I see MC2 as benefiting by starting with an established body of market participants with a stake in outcome. MC2 begins with cheerleaders and market volume. A perceived risk is that some of the large PTS owners will just dump MC2 as quickly as they can because they have no interest or faith in future appreciation, but that is also a buying opportunity for any with faith in MC2. Given that a large percentage of PTS ownership is from easy acquisition in the first week, it is hard to say how any of this will go. A malicious VC investor can probably ruin a company easier than a good VC investor can nourish it. The plunder will depend on how much value is pre-built into the release as compared with anticipated earnings later. I don't know what MC2 is about yet, but I intend to hold it and nourish it with a premise that it can return long term value.

I had intended to propose the formation of a DAC to my employer this week. In this case money would not need to be raised to fund it, the funding would be from my employer according to perceived value. If I have to turn the reigns completely over to Inviticus because they remain a group with protected implementation knowledge then I'd rather not take such a chance. I need to understand what I'm recommending. The knowledge needs to be well shared. We all need to be potential developers on your team.

You seem to trust your ability to negotiate regulatory obstacles. You are missing that the obstacles are intended to destroy competition slowly to protect vested interests. Obstacles can be easily placed in your path to cause you to fail or to corrupt your solution. The size of the obstacle is proportional to the threat. The regulatory framework is now predatory and destructive to society. You know this, but ego is seemingly a stronger voice. Decentralization is a requirement if you hope to remain true to ideals we bought into. Angel investors have a natural incentive to help Inviticus too.


Offline HackFisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
It is good thought to change clouding mining cost into investment into DACs. But I am against the approach.

Changing the hard limit of ProtoShares will be a disaster. The question of "how many PTS there will be" has been answered thousands of times, I am pretty sure the scarcity is the no.1 factor make protoshares succeed in Chinese community. It is extremely hard to educate this change.

Mining is special. Most BTC miners would rather spend $ in ASIC than purchase BTC directly, even with lower ROI. This may give you some hints of their investment manners.

I agree, and also against this approach just for Invictus as central point, and total money supply. Existing approach and commitment to the community already exist and should not change in a hard-to-understand way. Although the motivation is good, there could be better solutions.  The other 90% of BTS and new DAC could be the source of funding, but should not use term "PTS". It take too much risk for only less than 50% PTS unmined.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:42:07 am by HackFisher »
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 devilfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
I agree with Liberty's points on this one although I won go so far as to say its If it's just a proposal to the community bytemaster then why are you getting so defensive? A little more tact in your explanations might win you more support.

Also I feel the hosting companies might be getting money but at least the distribution mechanism for the coins/shares is decentralised because they play no part in determining how many coins you end up with at the end of the day.
BTC: 1MqCxQ2qD7ZuS3ELFY43wfaBTbA2XkYwDP
PTS: PiuFEJHz6zScALgPWzcu2SDKtWJW4cnUFi
XPM: Af5qzgsEwWaHZdGUq8dUoHkhmH4XBmnGW9

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Quote
I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.

Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company.  What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs? 

New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them.  They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.

Let's say I'm part of a team and we want to get in on the action with Invictus and develop a DAC. What would this look like? Before, there was talk of sending PTS to a team with a good idea. I'd assumed that they were selling these shares to fund their development. In exchange, the investors would get shares in the new DAC perhaps even greater than 1 to 1, which is what all other PTS holders would get. What would this new system look like?
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline Amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Forum
It is good thought to change clouding mining cost into investment into DACs. But I am against the approach.

Changing the hard limit of ProtoShares will be a disaster. The question of "how many PTS there will be" has been answered thousands of times, I am pretty sure the scarcity is the no.1 factor make protoshares succeed in Chinese community. It is extremely hard to educate this change.

Mining is special. Most BTC miners would rather spend $ in ASIC than purchase BTC directly, even with lower ROI. This may give you some hints of their investment manners. 
Forum Donation: PforumPLfVQXTi4QpQqKwoChXHkoHcxGuA

Offline bytemaster

Quote
I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.

Right now your 'investment' is in Amazon and your power company.  What are they doing with your money to improve the value of PTS or build DACs? 

New DACs require ways to raise funds to build them.  They can of course launch with or without our help and with or without PTS.
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 bytemaster

If DAC idea can't attract independent developers, it will fail eventually. 100% stake of DAC is actually preventing new developers joining as independence, but like hired ones.

Also, breaking a social contract is not good idea now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are trying to improve the social contract to the upside by proposing a way to deliver more value to current holders. 

There is nothing preventing new developers from joining as independent... the process is identical to how it works today, resources are just redirected from paying for electricity to paying for development.   How does a independent developer consuming electricity help motivate them? 
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 bytemaster

I understand you have to do what you have to do but I think this will kill the price of PTS and destroy what "shareholder value" you have earned over the last few months.

+1 for Liberties Comments

We don't have to do anything, we are trying to present the community with an option that would get them more for their time and money.
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 bytemaster

This is just a proposal to get feedback.... we have not committed to any particular course of action at this time.  We are suggesting this for the benefit of everyone involved except botnet owners mining with stolen resources.  Obviously, we have to make our case.

We are not getting any increased ownership by these actions, the people getting ownership are the 'miners'

Someone who spends $10 extra on electricity will get just as many (or more) PTS by sending $10 to the Angel Address... we are in favor of supporting the little guy.

We are not decreasing ownership PTS holders will get in new DACs, we are increasing it.

We are increasing the profitability of new DACs after launch by eliminating mining (an expense). 

We could honor the social contract for PTS without any modifications at all... release BitShares with Momentum Mining right beside BitShares without Momentum Mining and let the market figure out which one is worth more.   Obviously the DAC with lower expenses and higher yields is worth more, but I could be wrong.  I don't really want to fragment the market, but obviously it would honor the social contract as originally designed.

I recognize that I cannot violate the social contract in such a way that would decrease value to PTS holders, but do reserve the right to increase their value proposition.

We will not be implementing any of these proposed changes until after Keyhotee launches.





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 Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
The important part of mining is people can get something for what they percieve to be nothing but what is in reality a combination of their attention and their hardware's attention.  I think nobody would fault Invictus for taking a % of a new type of Protoshares to fund DACs so long as it's understood in advance thats what it does, and it sticks to its mission even if you really really want to change it.   That doesn't mean it's ok for you to essentially pre-mine the whole thing and auction it while calling it mining.   If you have some, you should be giving some away in a way where people who don't have money to invest can still be invested in your success.  Don't forget the little people
Before you say the price of PTS is too high, take a look at theThe Reason.  Protoshares are an entirely new type of Cryptocurrency, one that pays to hold.

Offline coyote47

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
I understand you have to do what you have to do but I think this will kill the price of PTS and destroy what "shareholder value" you have earned over the last few months.

+1 for Liberties Comments





Offline mitao

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
If DAC idea can't attract independent developers, it will fail eventually. 100% stake of DAC is actually preventing new developers joining as independence, but like hired ones.

Also, breaking a social contract is not good idea now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Quote
Giving reward to the deepest pockets also results in centralization. You are offering 100% stake in each future genesis block that grows by 100K per WEEK with unlimited market cap in exchange for 10% stake in a market cap limited to 2 million. My understanding was that the 90% was a limit of coin to be mined, not 90% in Inviticus' pocket to sell. Doesn't seem like it would be long before this deal sucks for existing investors that can't reinvest enough to maintain the percentage they started with.

This is done so that "Inviticus can raise money" to decide winners and losers for starting new DACs, and that is a good thing? And we're supposed to run to this for some altruistic notions about saving the planet from global warming? It is as if you see all the money people waste in Vegas and long to change the rules to give yourself a bigger stake by peddling the 90% you didn't have to the deepest pockets.

I am offering PTS holders a chance to lock in much more than 10% for every DAC released in the next 12 months that will not be diluted through mining over the years ahead.   
If we launch BitShares as expected in Q1 then PTS holders who mined the coin into existence by consuming electricity will have 75% stake forever,  those that mine with BTC will have 25%.   
Compare this to the original plan, PTS holders would have 100% of BTC at the genesis block, but within 12 months would have been diluted down to less than 50% by new miners who will spend real money to purchase electricity and computing power.   I suspect that less than 5% of that hashing power will be from home users paying money to their electric company.

My motivations have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with economizing to maximize wealth production in the world.   Consumption destroys wealth and doesn't generate it.  Saving (ie: not consuming) helps to build wealth.   

Invictus is not selling it for profit, we will be using the funds to build and support DACs on behalf of those who hold PTS.   If we do not use the funds wisely then the value of PTS will fall and people will stop buying it, on the other hand if we are good stewards of the money then we will produce far more value for those who help fund the development of DACs than they could have received by investing anywhere else.

The problem I see is that you think Invictus is taking this money as profit vs as investment capital.   100% of the funds will be used to hire developers, marketers, lawyers, and other skills required to make these DACs possible as quickly as we can.    Imagine telling a VC partners that to get a stake in your company he should spend $20 million dollars with his electric company.  It is non-sensical. 

I will state one last economic truth:  to create wealth requires capital to be concentrated / centralized.  If you were to immediately decentralize ownership of all of the wealth in the world then all production of goods would stop as no one person would have enough capital to build anything of significance.   

What you call making things up as we go along, we call openness and transparency and the realization that we all learn as we go. 

Increases in efficiency only mean that more hash-power can be produced for the same power and thus increases in difficulty, not decreases in power consumption. 

As far as I am concerned the only question that ultimately matters is this:  does this proposal increase or decrease shareholder value for the current owners of PTS.   From my analysis this proposal means we will have the opportunity to hire dedicated teams to build a half dozen different DACs, none of which would be possible without something like this.   We would actually have money to fund marketing, professional videos, etc.   

Your reply has increased my concerns. To your economic arguments first:

"Consumption destroys wealth and doesn't generate it.  Saving (ie: not consuming) helps to build wealth...to create wealth requires capital to be concentrated / centralized."

No, you are calling exchange "consumption". Adam Smith shows that exchange of goods creates wealth by allowing specialization of production. Capital concentration finds balance with plunder, and systems based on sustaining such a balance are destructive to all. Electricity is not a limited resource. It is knowledge of electricity production that is limited.

"Increases in efficiency only mean that more hash-power can be produced for the same power and thus increases in difficulty, not decreases in power consumption."

It was very clear that I was talking about how hardware improvements over time allow the average computer user to use less electricity. Mining is an incentive for those efficiency improvements. Obviously miners will continue to push all boundaries. You seemed to be pushing a social benefit angle that you'd have been on the wrong side of.

"does this proposal increase or decrease shareholder value for the current owners of PTS."

You are scaring the hell out of of this investor. The way I see it is that my shares could tomorrow be worth 1/300th of what I paid for them. My investment no longer purchases the ability to invest in worthy DACs and profit from success. I'd have a rapidly decaying percentage of PTS that I can best retain by supporting the DACs that I'd estimate to have the least perceived value. It changes from an investment that grows exponentially to an investment that requires constant picking of the worst performers to retain.

I don't want Inviticus to develop a kingdom of centralized power. Are you now saying there is no market incentive for DACs to form unless you help them? That nobody would possibly want to profit in that way? Your actions eliminate all independent market forces that would otherwise form to assist with DAC creation. We already had one DAC created. Didn't seem so impossible without your help. I don't want to gamble whether you alone will be a good steward of my investment. I want a marketplace to decide among many participants.

I've had the pleasure to meet some self proclaimed anarchists over the years. What I eventually learned was that they all just wanted to undermine control to replace with their own. Damn, this is looking similar.

Your greed is pushing you to try to combine two things. You want to move to proof-of-stake mining because you learned it is more practical for DACs. The problem is you are now trying to change the social contract for ProtoShares to increase the ownership that you felt you missed out on. In the process, you are undermining all PTS value to investors and encouraging centralization of power. In just one evening I've gone from one of your biggest supporters to thinking I want out entirely. I recall how you gleefully told another investor how their departure means cheaper shares for you, so don't bother. Your primary concern was obvious then, and I should have trusted my instincts. I'll review further before making such a rash decision.