Angel Shares Feedback Requested

[que23]

I bought all my PTS. I probably bought more than a lowly paid teacher should have . Do whatever you think is best bytemaster. I had noticed that Mastercoin had a better method of funding development over Invictus. To me, it sounds like this new model would ignite a real fire and get things moving quickly.

[markzookerburg]

I think we could work together on this. I will PM you regarding something now - do respond accordingly

[bytemaster]

Cryptocurrencies made sense to people because ti enabled those with resources in terms of computing power to contribute to something and attain currency -the current model wont benefit those who dont have deep pockets and I feel its not fair to kick out mining from the equation. Everyone with a device should be allowed to mine

Mining is not free, ultimately everyone mining with a computer is paying for their shares via their electric bill.   The perception that mining is free money is the illusion that needs to be broken. 

Furthermore, this isn't a currency this is a crypto-equity and nothing of value is produced by mining for minings sake. 

Lastly, everyone that wanted mining with their CPU already got a HUGE free handout just for being aware.

[bytemaster]

A few questions:

1. PTS2 is BTS, because it will be 100% of the (BTS) genesis block. (why do we need the genesis block then?)

PTS2 is NOT BTS, when we launch BTS we will take a snapshot of PTS2 and then BTS money supply will be fixed from that point forward.  Meanwhile PTS2 will be used to fund DomainShares, LuckyShares, VoteShares, and many other DACs we have designs for.  These will all leverage work done on BTS.

2. Since there's no limit on PTS2, (i.e. 100K/week "as long as it takes" to develop DACs) , the cap on BTS is lifted (10x?) , this worries me.

Invictus will not have ability to create new BTS.  We have effectively reduced the first BTS chain from 20 Million coins over 10 years to 2 million coins forever.  Big win for PTS holders and BTS holders.

3. Didn't the previous "social contract" say PTS1 was 10% of the 1st BTS? This won't be the case anymore, right?

10% = 2 Million coins in Genesis Block... the other 18 Million would be mined out over 8 years (heavily front loaded).   PTS holders end up with more BTS and get less diluted over time as there will no longer be mining in BTC... it also means that BTC will be more profitable as a DAC because it isn't paying mining rewards and thus has lower expenses.  We have added a ton of value and taken no value away.

4. If I, as a DAC investor, have met my objective by buying enough PTS shares,  the only option for me is to sell PTS, convert it to BTC and send it to  the Angel address?

No need to sell your PTS... the expected value of PTS purchased by sending BTC to the Angel address should equal the market value of the PTS you already have.   All we have done is capture money that would have been going to mining.   

Something everyone needs to consider is this:  our friends and family have purchased over $50,000 worth of PTS for cash at prices between $10 and $25 and it would have ramifications if we took any action that would devalue their purchase.   We want to do things that make everyone who holds PTS more money.   

Right now PTS is being backed by our ideas and the $575K initial budget we were given to develop BitShares.   Every day $100K is being burned up while diluting existing PTS holders.

The new plan would result in $100K per day being added to the backing of all PTS and thus dramatically increase the value of PTS.

[markzookerburg]

Cryptocurrencies made sense to people because ti enabled those with resources in terms of computing power to contribute to something and attain currency -the current model wont benefit those who dont have deep pockets and I feel its not fair to kick out mining from the equation. Everyone with a device should be allowed to mine

[bitcool]

A few questions:

1. PTS2 is BTS, because it will be 100% of the (BTS) genesis block. (why do we need the genesis block then?)

2. Since there's no limit on PTS2, (i.e. 100K/week "as long as it takes" to develop DACs) , the cap on BTS is lifted (10x?) , this worries me.

3. Didn't the previous "social contract" say PTS1 was 10% of the 1st BTS? This won't be the case anymore, right? The issuing model of PTS2, it's called "mining" by name only, right? if nobody else can mine it, isn't it just a slow release of Ripples?

4. If I, as a DAC investor, have met my objective by buying enough PTS shares,  the only option for me is to sell PTS, convert it to BTC and send it to  the Angel address?

[bytemaster]

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.   

[Liberty]

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?

So mining rewards are determined by investment rather than investment quality/returns? Ideas that attract the greatest investments have the least return?

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 like the idea of creating incentives for DACs, but I want a decentralized solution and result based returns (which I think only a free market can determine over time). Inviticus will make plenty of money just by staying involved. I you are in this for the long haul then it should not both so much that Inviticus missed the early mining opportunity they created. I've purchased thousands of PTS expecting that supply would be limited. The proposal you've just made would greatly diminish that value and centralize control. I have enough shares that I could increase my percentage at the expense of people with less, but what may be good for me personally is not necessarily good for the market and those with greater stake would eventually consume mine.

At this point your proposal seems no different than one I'd expect from a politician using greed and envy to offer the bounty of what they can plunder by changing the rules. So now "miners burning money" is to be a rhetorical argument against miners earning money? I'm starting to think the rules are being made up as you go along rather than clearly envisioned. These constant proposals to change the rules raise concern, but this one in particular clearly needs a better explanation to investors. What you are saying has some worthy goals, but my thought at this point is looks like a terrible idea that achieves the opposite of the #1 stated goal.

You believe in free markets. You should realize that increased electricity demands become an incentive for efficiency improvements and alternatives. You call it wasteful, I call it a force of life and change that achieves what nihilistic remedies can only claim to offer. The electric companies only profit from mining costs in the short term; after that computers get generally more efficient and alternative power sources break through monopoly controls. Most people use computers but do not mine; therefore, power consumption generally goes down as efficiencies necessarily improve over time. Currently there is not enough incentive for people learn how generate their own free electricity; too many sheep get what they are given and dare not separate from the herd.

[Stan]

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.

Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.

100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS  (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).

100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%.   This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs.  After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.

This proposal could simply be viewed as a more elegant form of crowd sourcing.

[Stan]

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.

Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.

100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS  (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).

100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%.   This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs.  After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.

And all our supporters who have been saying "why don't you do this?" and "why don't you do that?" will be running out of things to wish for!   

[bytemaster]

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.

Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.

100K PTS is how many PTS were scheduled to be mined the first week we launched PTS  (50 PTS * 12 BlocksPerHour*24*7).

100K PTS equals 5.2 Million per year... thus would be 80% of PTS in 1 year... after 2 years it would be 10% which would be on par with the original PTS social contract of mining 10%.   This just replaces BTS mining and provides a nice round number to fund many new DACs.  After 2 years I doubt we will need extra funding raised in this form.

[seraphim]

Ok, probably there will be enough people throwing in btc if the price would end up being too low - assumed they know.
More work for the marketing team!

// removed further concerns, go invictus!

[busygin]

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.

Why 100K PTS and not 100 or 1M? Sounds quite a bit on the high end to me... But otherwise, I like the idea. Waste of electricity/carbon print of mining is the main global issue of cryptos today.

[bytemaster]

Without the ability to (at least approximately) calculate profits, would people still throw that much money into mining pts?

I like the idea, but the switch has to be made very carefully. Maybe even with an eye on the current exchange prices...

It would be a giant auction with everyone getting the same price.   You can estimate profits based upon how much has already been sent to the address.   Of course many people will wait until everyone else has sent their payment but even if everyone sends their funds at the last moment that just pushes the average price higher.   

Other options include us selling shares for a fixed price with no limit on the number of shares available to purchase.   This would kill any kind of price discovery system.

[Stan]

With respect to signing authorities being a central point of failure.... the account balances are all public and thus the signing authority can be changed and allow the chain to continue if the authority is ever compromised or shutdown.   It would be inconvenient, requiring all nodes to switch their authority but the network would continue. 

Suppose we were controlled by the government, the only thing we could do as a signing authority is stop transactions. 

Lets keep one thing clear, Invictus being the signing authority would only apply to PTS because Invictus is the one receiving the funds that replace mining.   No way to decentralize that.   

The DACs that we build will be set up to live without Invictus based upon some variation of the Proof of Stake ideas being proposed.

From the very beginning we have stated that the value of PTS is a function of the sum of all developers promising to develop great DACs and the believability of their commitment to honor that promise.  Humans must be in the loop during development.  Humans must be out of the loop during operation.  We don't want to lose sight of that difference between protoDACs and DACs.

Since humans are already involved in development, developers might as well be allowed to defend the integrity of the process they are running to distribute their shares. 

Once their DACs are launched and they have honored their Social Contract, then developers must let go.