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.
Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested (Read 106857 times)
