Author Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested  (Read 45277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline evolvo

Think about the investor who had a limited amount of money and resources to invest in Protoshares because he believed in the social contract and the vision for the future.  Now that investor has tapped out his resources both mining and buying PTS.  He's made a financial calculation contributing a certain amount of limited resources for a certain percentage of shares.  Now what you're saying is that the percentage of equity that he has acquired will be much smaller than in the original social contract.

For those who are still in the process of acquiring PTS or who have vast resources to buy more PTS or to buy/mine more Angel Shares I can see where they might see the advantage.  For those who believed in the vision from the beginning, did the math, devised their investment strategy, and tapped out their remaining resources to fulfill it, your proposal leaves us with A. a devalued share as more shares are being created that in the contract B. no more resources to buy this new share.  I expect now to see PTS value plummet as the community's trust in Invictus to keep its word(which is what PTS value represents) is perhaps irreparably tarnished.  Perhaps well intentioned, but huge mistake.
Welcome To The Blockchain (The Bitcoin Song) - by Toby + Decap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbzNJr26H-4

Offline super3

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
The money I've made just over the past year from people dumping... I'll buy a bunch of PTS when the exchanges come back on.

Your here in the first place because Bytemaster had controversial ideas. Note that this idea comes more from the fatal centralization and algorithmic issues in Proof-of-Work than raising money. This is pretty hard to convince anyone unless they have read and understand the Bitcoin whitepaper, or had a coin they had significant value in die because of a network attack.

Here is my suggestion:
15% stake in Protoshares V2 which is a hybrid Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake. This honors the original social contact to the community and the miners, plus a bonus. Also shorten the re-target time, and perhaps use the new version of momentum. Protoshares can laugh as botnets start to have a bad day, miners will be happy as they don't get squeezed. Current investors can now earn "dividends" even before the BitShares release. Also makes us resistant to 51% attacks.

Bytemaster can up with a next gen Proof-of-Stake system, so I'm talking with the creator of Proof-of-Stake to see what he says. I think the 5+ crypto-currencies will proof-of-stake will implement it. Its that good. It's kind of funny that everything we come up with here has major implications on the entire cryptocurrency world.

15% sake in AngelShares. Why do we need AngelShares? Simple if want a talented C++ developer making an average of $89,280(2011), we need to at least match that to get he/she to drop what they are doing. Byte estimated that around $1 million is currently being spend on mining right now. Unless you have a rig(I do), I'd much rather those funds to go development than Amazon EC2. So if we were to make similar numbers on AngelShares we could pretty much double the company overnight.

tldr; Hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Proof-of-Work is probably good for everyone. AngleShares good because it speeds things up.
tldr2; Will offer 1 PTS if someone can find a fatal flaw in my argument. 


Note that hybrid will take much more time. I say we keep Protoshares as it is, then release the upgraded Protoshares after we get Keyotee out.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 01:17:32 am by super3 »

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
Quote
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.

First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated  and  the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious  things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term  for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on,  be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example.  Botnets , for them, all this   is just money out of thin air nothing more.

What Invictus proposed is something  that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project  needs money the more the better.
Now let's  not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not  breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0  will be forked IF  is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody  and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.

So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know  they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.

This is excellent. Earlier bytemaster said there was someone willing to leave their 150k job to work on the Bitshares project. I want that guy on my team. I'm not heartless, I care about the guy who was making a PTS miner, but that was only ever good for 2 million PTS. It's not a very sustainable business. Getting high class programers is very good idea.

Important to get the numbers right.  Bytemaster proposed 100k new shares sold per week, which at current prices would be about 2 million USD per week in revenue.  That's a LOT of developers.
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 que23

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

First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated  and  the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious  things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term  for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on,  be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example.  Botnets , for them, all this   is just money out of thin air nothing more.

What Invictus proposed is something  that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project  needs money the more the better.
Now let's  not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not  breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0  will be forked IF  is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody  and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.

So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know  they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.

This is excellent. Earlier bytemaster said there was someone willing to leave their 150k job to work on the Bitshares project. I want that guy on my team. I'm not heartless, I care about the guy who was making a PTS miner, but that was only ever good for 2 million PTS. It's not a very sustainable business. Getting high class programers is very good idea.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.

I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?

Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.

This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.

Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.

I see your point, but Mastercoin is open to change in any direction is wants. We don't know how competitive things might get. The way I see it, Invictus has the anonymity feature on it's side,  but Mastercoin or someone else might suddenly solve that problem and then PTS is screwed. Don't you think the network effect is important?

I think there is room for more than 3 choices for a decentralized stock market, currency exchange, derivatives market, etc. The idea that only one can dominate when the market cap of Forex is in the trillions? I don't think it will make a difference if all 3 were successful and in fact I think its better if there are more choices.

That is why I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. Together they will grow the economy much faster than if one dominates. This is like Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Opera and Chrome. Right now we are worried that it's still in the Netscape and Internet Explorer phase?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Quote
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.

First of all I thing this was just a idea that Bytemaster proposed and by no means a final decision, in fact he clearly stated  and  the name of the topic is : Feedback Request. Ultimately I thing everybody wants the project to succeed. So before accusing Bytmaster of greed or else. There are some obvious  things that are not right and bytemaster is trying to solve. The bootents and the chinese super computer. Those guys they don't give a shit about protoshare they are in short term  for the money, and if we let them be, they gonna take the big part of every pie that they can get there hands on,  be it DAC, Bitshare or else. Don't get me wrong we all hopping to make some money of course but at least we are trying to do something about it like arguing in this forum, or trying already to build a DAC like WETube for example.  Botnets , for them, all this   is just money out of thin air nothing more.

What Invictus proposed is something  that potentially could change the cryptoworld or even the way we do business as we know it. In order to succeed the project needs programmers, needs marketing, needs people to believe and be involved, for all of that the project  needs money the more the better.
Now let's  not forget that Invictus said, if need be, there will be a Protoshare 2.0, so it is not  breach of contract IF Protoshare 2.0  will be forked IF  is solving obvious problems and this with the consensus of everybody  and in a way that is still very interesting for new investors. I mean I'm not saying that we should change everything but this project it is very young still, so if there are thing to be fixed this is the time to do it of course we need sound reasons and be completely transparent about it.

So should be a good ideea to find a better way to address those needs instead of accusing or even worst threatening to dump protoshares, anyhow those that are dumping right know  they are in for short term so they may as well do whatever and get the hell out of this project we don't need them.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.

6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.

Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.

If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?

I have several BTC that I was thinking of investing.  I could buy PTS but that wouldn't actually help develop any DACs so it would be more like placing a bet on whether or not Invictus can pull it off with their current funds.  If they run out of money PTS is worthless.  Unless they manage to raise some capital I will have to sell the couple of PTS I have mined.  Looks like PTS is screwed because the socialists will dump if they attempt to raise capital and capitalists will dump if they can't. 

Is it possible for me to buy shares of Invictus?  How do they profit?  I understand the value proposition of the DACs, but I don't see how Invictus can profit from this whole effort.   Why would I as an angel investor buy Invictus stock?   The point is mute because only qualified investors can buy Invictus stock.

The insane thing is I read somewhere that they had to buy the PTS they have because the mining competition was so fierce.  So it appears PTS has sucked capital out of Invictus.  They had to buy PTS or else how could they possibly profit?

From where I sit, it looks like bytemaster attempted to play by the socially accepted norms and the result is very predictable.   Socialists will clamor against capitalists and toss about accusations of envy and greed.  Any attempt to accumulate capital to build a free society is poo-pooed.   God help us all!

If they don't fix the capta problem I am gonna have to stop posting!

I want to be an angel investor too but you have to look at the entire economic ecosystem. Changing the social contract disrupts the delicate Nash equillibrium and it's proven by the dumping and price drop.

The reason this is happening is the people who got involved decided on their profit strategy early on and these changes require them to make changes to their profit strategy.

So for instance if someone was selling Protoshare mining rigs that they build to order then the fact that future DACs will not be mined just put them and every business like theirs out of business. They were promoting Protoshares and even built a business around it and this change would put them out of business. Then you have people who bought the rigs already who would lose money as well because now their ROI isn't guaranteed and finally you have removed mining which removes an entire strategic sector from the economy and haven't replaced it with another sector which makes sense.

Yes being an angel investor is nice and all but where is the money supposed to come from if you lose your job making mining rigs or if you're not paid to work for the CPU maker, the utility or solar panel company, or even Digital Ocean and Amazon? We assume that employees are companies such as these do not know about Protoshares and do not own them? What if they do?

So we should not say mining is a waste. It might not be the most efficient way of doing things but you still have to recognize that if these changes are made there could be losers and those losers aren't going to be happy that their profit strategy was removed.

This is why I said the contests, giveaways and other mechanisms should be in place. You cannot just take away the mining sector and then ask for investment. Where is the investment money supposed to be coming from? Of course if you provide jobs, or if they do bounties for Mastercoin then it might come from there but then you have to stop looking at Mastercoin as a competitor and instead look at it as a contributor to the ecosystem and those millions can circulate into Protoshares with the right marketing.

Finally we have to accept the fact that most people have day jobs. A lot of people here work for the utility company, or make and sell solar panels, or build computers. Not everyone is a programmer and when you remove an entire mining industry you actually end up with the result of people being laid off from their real jobs or perhaps they just lose a great deal of revenue.

Solar panels have to be sold because it's a critical strategic component. Electricity is not a big deal because when it is expensive it encourages people to upgrade to renewable energy like solar. Those upgrades create jobs for people like us who can then invest in stuff like Protoshares, Bitshares or whatever. So unless we are all going to be programmers we have to try to invite the wider economy into the community and to do that we have to be buying stuff from them whether it be computer parts, solar panels, products, services or whatever but at the same time we need investment to develop the DACs which represent the future.

If we look at the situation with ASICs the problem is that the power is too concentrated into the hands of mining pools and it's centralized. So I understand the dangers of PoW and I don't think it is a long term solution. But I don't blame the small miners for that.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 01:09:38 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.

I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?

Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.

This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.

Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.

I see your point, but Mastercoin is open to change in any direction is wants. We don't know how competitive things might get. The way I see it, Invictus has the anonymity feature on it's side,  but Mastercoin or someone else might suddenly solve that problem and then PTS is screwed. Don't you think the network effect is important?
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline threepoint14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
you ruined the PTS.price is going down.sucker


從我的  用 iPhone 發送

It should go down. Everyone should stop throwing their money at the electric company. Wait for Angel Shares to be released.



No Captcha!!! Thank God!

Offline threepoint14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

Doing it right is more important than doing it fast. There is strong competition but there really is only Mastercoin and Coloredcoin. The marketcaps are so huge that there is plenty of marketshare for all three so I don't see what the rush is about.

6 months from now there will be another wave and Bitcoins will be going for $10,000-20,000 each. The crowd funding rules will also be more clear and we will know what role regulation will have.

Right now we don't even know what the regulatory environment will be. The DACs should be developed for sure and angel investment should occur. There is plenty of space to reserve in the DACs for angel investors without disrupting the Protoshares 10%. So I don't see the issue.

If you have more, become an angel investor. Why do we need angelshares?

I have several BTC that I was thinking of investing.  I could buy PTS but that wouldn't actually help develop any DACs so it would be more like placing a bet on whether or not Invictus can pull it off with their current funds.  If they run out of money PTS is worthless.  Unless they manage to raise some capital I will have to sell the couple of PTS I have mined.  Looks like PTS is screwed because the socialists will dump if they attempt to raise capital and capitalists will dump if they can't. 

Is it possible for me to buy shares of Invictus?  How do they profit?  I understand the value proposition of the DACs, but I don't see how Invictus can profit from this whole effort.   Why would I as an angel investor buy Invictus stock?   The point is mute because only qualified investors can buy Invictus stock.

The insane thing is I read somewhere that they had to buy the PTS they have because the mining competition was so fierce.  So it appears PTS has sucked capital out of Invictus.  They had to buy PTS or else how could they possibly profit?

From where I sit, it looks like bytemaster attempted to play by the socially accepted norms and the result is very predictable.   Socialists will clamor against capitalists and toss about accusations of envy and greed.  Any attempt to accumulate capital to build a free society is poo-pooed.   God help us all!

If they don't fix the capta problem I am gonna have to stop posting!

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
I'm with Que on this one.  Miners efforts are wasted outside the system.  Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon.  If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining.  Mining is wasteful.  Its wasteful here.  And really would miners promote a currency?  I doubt it.  That's a myth.  Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening.  If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS.  Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.

PTS 2 was just one idea. The other is to let ProtoShares run its course with the miners and have Angel shares, which would build on top of protoshares. ProtoShare holders would still get their 1 to 1 with BTS. And! Instead of 10% of Bitshares, you'd get around 50%. A terrific deal. And! Bitshares would only have around 2 million shares! So you would own much, much more than what was promised. Also, angel shares pump money into development which benefits protoshares greatly.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.

I'm involved with Mastercoin and Bitshares. The problem you have is you think that they are competitors when in reality they don't really compete with each other as much as they compete with Wall Street, the NASDAQ, Forex, Dow, banks and so on.

Mastercoin and Bitshares are in it together in the long term and this concern about how Mastercoin has raised millions of dollars is stupid. Let's say Mastercoin raises millions and they give a job or two to me and I earn some money which I go and use to buy Protoshares or become an angel investor. Do you see now how it works?

Let's say you work for Intel, or you make mining rigs for a living so in your day job you're selling rigs so people can mine Protoshares telling them that the price will go way up even if they mine at a loss. You used to just make computers, now you make mining rigs and market Protoshares. If mining is removed now you've lost all that potential income which you could have used to buy more Protoshares or invest as an angel investor.

This is not like corporations in the real world which have to compete because the law says they must profit. These are DACs which have the same agenda and where the primary opposition will be from regulatory strangulation and competition from the real world stock exchanges.

Money will come to Bitshares as it comes to Mastercoin and money will come to Mastercoin as it comes to Bitshares. Nothing stops Mastercoin from hosting PTS or PTS and trades for MSC to PTS.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 12:48:31 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
you ruined the PTS.price is going down.sucker


從我的  用 iPhone 發送

It should go down. Everyone should stop throwing their money at the electric company. Wait for Angel Shares to be released.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline que23

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

Mastercoin is getting million pumped into them. It's just really hard to see how Invictus can compete with that. Also, the social contract isn't being broken. Only the people who thought they'd be able to mine Bitshares are upset and they are hoping to get something for nothing. Things are moving so fast in this space that we can't wait 2 or 3 years. If we knew only two months ago what we know now, things would be crazy different. That's how fast things are moving--only 2 months. There's really no choice but to light a fire and charge ahead.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Well, it appears that the company is pivoting. I'm holding all my PTS and telling my friends to buy.

Now that I've slept on it. I think Protoshare holders should get what was promised in the social contract, which is 10%. Angel shares can then get the other 90%. The new investment will benefit Protoshare holders greatly because the money for Angel shares will fuel development and growth. We'd also be more competitive with Mastercoin and Ripple.

Completely agree - We need to raise capital to speed up operations

Thanks. I don't think people understand that Invictus has strong competition. They risk being left in the dust. Angel Shares will provide value to Protoshares because it will be the vehicle that accelerates development.

As far as I can see, though, it may be most important to be first to the DAB/P2P DAC  -- I wonder if bytemaster has any ideas for getting to market faster, in that regard.  Raising capital for the DAC's to follow would be easy if BitShare were released today.

If Bitshares were released today the program would crash. Now, Invictus has an amazing lineup of coders. However, these are very difficult programs to make. And what about security. If we want the most secure products out there, we really need more eyes on the problem. And that's what we're talking about. Waiting 5 years for each DAC or getting 2 or 3 out a year. I want the 2 0r 3 a year!

It does not take 2-3 years to release a DAC. It depends on how ambitious the DAC is of course. Bitshares could really take a few years with the giant feature set it is supposed to have but it doesn't have to take that long.

The case has been made that angel investment is critical to the success of the overall project. The question is how can we do it without upsetting or disrupting Protoshare holders. And if we are going for a buy your way in Proof of Stake strategy then what about the people who aren't investors? As long as the investment money circulates then it would work but right now we don't know what would happen because a detailed plan has not been laid out.

How much money is needed? How many programmers? Will there be giveaways and contests for everyone else so the money isn't given just to the chosen few?

Work out these issues and then a compromise solution can be reached where the social contract remains the same but everyone gets some win.

I'm with Que on this one.  Miners efforts are wasted outside the system.  Your paying expenses to your ulility company and amazon.  If you really invested money for mining protoshares, I think that was ill-advised because there has numerous discussions here that Invictus was looking for a PoS-- which seeks to limit mining.  Mining is wasteful.  Its wasteful here.  And really would miners promote a currency?  I doubt it.  That's a myth.  Once miners get their coins, they would dump them on the market once they see a good opening.  If you really want to get involved in PTS, but with mining its thats so important, then mine another currency, exchange it and get some PTS.  Then convert those PTS to PTS 2.

And that is why you have to throw a bone to the people who did invest in rigs to mine not just Protoshares but the whole Proof of Momentum class which Invictus laid out as if it was the new paradigm. Now that half of all Protoshares are mined there is talk of lets move completely to Proof of Stake?

I'm all for promoting investment, but I don't think you can have a completely exclusive economy. In order for an ecosystem to work you do need to be a part of the wider economy. That means it isn't a bad thing to be giving money to utility companies, CPU companies or the wider IT community because then they have a stake in it indirectly. I also disagree with you that miners are just in it for the money. Everyone started as a miner and now we are acting like miners don't promote or market? How did you get involved if you didn't mine on day 1?

I think a hybrid approach would probably work best. Protoshares and Bitshares (if it is 21 million units) should be mined. It might even be possible to launch a mined version of a DAC and a PoS version to see which one the community prefers long term. But to switch mid stream from one to the other creates economic losers who did nothing wrong other than to try to support the ecosystem. Miners believed they were supporting the security of the network when they purchased the rigs and they also believed that they'd be able to mine with these rigs for Bitshares or at least some of the future DACs.

If the rigs are useless now it means those rigs have to be sold or paid for somehow which means dumping will occur once they figure out their rigs are now just useful as glorified computing devices. It disrupts the Nash equilibrium and the consequence is uncertainty and price fluctuations.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 12:37:49 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads