Author Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested  (Read 45284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • 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. 

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?
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!
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
When you make a deal, keep your word.  No other option

Agreed.

It has been hard to keep track of the various permutations of what is being proposed, but I think it reduces to the basics of Inviticus effectively wants a hard fork of PS1 to gain all future PTS mined so that they can use that value to support DACs. I know it hasn't been stated that way, but that is what is seems to boil down to. The AngelShares seem to be some complicated way to keep track of the PTS that Inviticus has appropriated by these means, and was originally envisioned as a way to materially diminish the long term investment value of existing PTS ownership (which of course risks major lawsuits years later). I think bytemaster is now renewing his promise not to devalue PTS by expanding the 2 million limit.

The AngelShares abstraction seems somewhat useless except perhaps as some form of voting for how funds are allocated. AngelShares would be an Inviticus DAC, and therefore owners of PTS start with 10% at genesis. Inviticus' ownership of PTS would grow to over 50% with PTS2 over a one year period. That is a lot of PTS for them to control the market with. One should consider if AngelShare distributions are an event that preceeds every DAC being formed rather than a one time event. The important thing is that PTS not get devalued over time beyond the 2 million lifetime supply, and that ownership of PTS is used to determine your initial proportional ownership in future DACs. Consider a DAC that is formed with PTS ownership that is then traded in a closed market (between only the original PTS owners) until the DAC goes public. A market value can be approached before true market conditions reward accordingly.

The difficult part of a hard fork is getting miners to accept it. ProtoShares mining is not profitable. PS1 mining gives determined individuals an opportunity to pay a premium to acquire a small amount of PTS. It is faster and less expensive to purchase PTS at market prices. Replacing mining with incremental distributions to Inviticus (up to the 2 million PTS limit) is not destructive to our current PTS investment; in fact, the elimination of mining would increase existing PTS value. A PTS2 fork may not be hard to sell in this way.

I don't consider a change in PS2 mining rules to be a material breach of contract like a change in supply rate or quantity would undermine PTS value. It is somewhat concerning that Inviticus would have a significant stake in PTS due to rule changes, but I'd like to believe it is all in our interest to allow this. It would be nice if Inviticus would agree to never own more than x percentage of all PTS. Ownership above that percentage should be sold at market prices so that others may participate. Inviticus would keep the proceeds of that sale or be obligated to use it for DAC funding.

The way I've just described it may actually seem more generous to Inviticus than what bytemaster claimed he was going for. I suspect this grants him control he desires without undermining existing investment value. I'm trying to find a win-win scenario here, and this seemed a better start to finding that.

[edit] Upon reflection, I think it is dangerous for Inviticus to own more than even 20% of PTS because they could then dictate whatever change they wanted and the entire economy might become subject to how a government can pressure Inviticus alone.

The original angel investor proposal was pretty good. Each DAC would have an angel wallet address and anyone could send PTS to it to reserve coins in the DAC. It could have worked similar to how Mastercoin worked.

It might be best if they just release their angel wallet addresses and do a sort of crowd funding campaign. Let the millionaires give millions that way and leave the social contract exactly as it is. I could live with that.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

bitbro

  • Guest
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.

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.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

bitbro

  • Guest


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.

This is exactly how I took the original post.

Can someone help me understand this?  If Invictus sells these "Angel Shares" and then allocates the shares to the investors providing the capital don't they have an obligation to spend that money to build some of their proposed distributed companies?   I don't see how they could profit from this unless they pay themselves salaries and bonuses higher than market rates.    Couldn't this be resolved with some transparent accounting and community oversight? 

It isn't good for them to change the social contract and it looks like byte has acknowledged that. 

If you do not trust them to spend the funds on promoting DACs then why buy PTS at all?

Oh, and these Captcha's suck!   Hopefully keyhotee will do something about that.

+1 to the Captcha comment

Offline threepoint14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile


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.

This is exactly how I took the original post.

Can someone help me understand this?  If Invictus sells these "Angel Shares" and then allocates the shares to the investors providing the capital don't they have an obligation to spend that money to build some of their proposed distributed companies?   I don't see how they could profit from this unless they pay themselves salaries and bonuses higher than market rates.    Couldn't this be resolved with some transparent accounting and community oversight? 

It isn't good for them to change the social contract and it looks like byte has acknowledged that. 

If you do not trust them to spend the funds on promoting DACs then why buy PTS at all?

Oh, and these Captcha's suck!   Hopefully keyhotee will do something about that.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 12:05:37 am by threepoint14 »

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
When you make a deal, keep your word.  No other option

Agreed.

It has been hard to keep track of the various permutations of what is being proposed, but I think it reduces to the basics of Inviticus effectively wants a hard fork of PS1 to gain all future PTS mined so that they can use that value to support DACs. I know it hasn't been stated that way, but that is what is seems to boil down to. The AngelShares seem to be some complicated way to keep track of the PTS that Inviticus has appropriated by these means, and was originally envisioned as a way to materially diminish the long term investment value of existing PTS ownership (which of course risks major lawsuits years later). I think bytemaster is now renewing his promise not to devalue PTS by expanding the 2 million limit.

The AngelShares abstraction seems somewhat useless except perhaps as some form of voting for how funds are allocated. AngelShares would be an Inviticus DAC, and therefore owners of PTS start with 10% at genesis. Inviticus' ownership of PTS would grow to over 50% with PTS2 over a one year period. That is a lot of PTS for them to control the market with. One should consider if AngelShare distributions are an event that preceeds every DAC being formed rather than a one time event. The important thing is that PTS not get devalued over time beyond the 2 million lifetime supply, and that ownership of PTS is used to determine your initial proportional ownership in future DACs. Consider a DAC that is formed with PTS ownership that is then traded in a closed market (between only the original PTS owners) until the DAC goes public. A market value can be approached before true market conditions reward accordingly.

The difficult part of a hard fork is getting miners to accept it. ProtoShares mining is not profitable. PS1 mining gives determined individuals an opportunity to pay a premium to acquire a small amount of PTS. It is faster and less expensive to purchase PTS at market prices. Replacing mining with incremental distributions to Inviticus (up to the 2 million PTS limit) is not destructive to our current PTS investment; in fact, the elimination of mining would increase existing PTS value. A PTS2 fork may not be hard to sell in this way.

I don't consider a change in PS2 mining rules to be a material breach of contract like a change in supply rate or quantity would undermine PTS value. It is somewhat concerning that Inviticus would have a significant stake in PTS due to rule changes, but I'd like to believe it is all in our interest to allow this. It would be nice if Inviticus would agree to never own more than x percentage of all PTS. Ownership above that percentage should be sold at market prices so that others may participate. Inviticus would keep the proceeds of that sale or be obligated to use it for DAC funding.

The way I've just described it may actually seem more generous to Inviticus than what bytemaster claimed he was going for. I suspect this grants him control he desires without undermining existing investment value. I'm trying to find a win-win scenario here, and this seemed a better start to finding that.

[edit] Upon reflection, I think it is dangerous for Inviticus to own more than even 20% of PTS because they could then dictate whatever change they wanted and the entire economy might become subject to how a government can pressure Inviticus alone.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 12:08:56 am by Liberty »

Offline GentleGnome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • 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

Might be too late as people started dumping. They are only being saved by the fact that the PTS market doesn't work on cryptsy right now.

bitbro

  • Guest
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

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.
PTS: Pa75dEzGkMcnM85hRMbdKiS1YdF81rnSCF

Ggozzo

  • Guest


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.

This is exactly how I took the original post.




Offline GentleGnome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Dump has restarted. 2K @ 0.015, 1K @ 0.014 and more to come. :)

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Luckybit, I don't care if you want the deal to be better for PTS holders or think that 21 million is too many.  When you bought or mined PTS, 10% of 21 million PTS was the deal and this plan does not change that at all.  You will have instant support for this plan because it does not impact PTS holders at all, if they want to ignore it they can and the deal will be exactly the same as if the change had never been made.

Try to understand, the problem here is Invictus looks like they don't know what they're doing and so are changing the game because they miscalculated early on.  Thats bad because the value of PTS and all invictus projects depends entirely on their ability to deliver, so demonstrating incompetence even if it is well intention-ed is inherently bad for the value of PTS.

You are already invested in PTS, Invictus and Bitshares and so you no longer matter with regards to the remaining distribution.  You understand the value, so if you want more you'll buy them, so of course you think it's a good idea for your usergroup to get 50% instead of 10%.  Now look at it from someone on the outside and suddenly the picture doesn't look so clear and in a competitive market where you can invest in increasing numbers of decentralized corporations that means Invictus is more likely to fail.

So just leave PTS alone and make a new deal where you get it right.  Don't change the deal for better or for worse, and then Invictus doesn't have to care what PTS holders think because they're getting exactly what they expected, even if it's not a new better deal you might think you should get.
+1 for leaving PTS deal as is.  When you buy into something like PTS, you are buying a promise. Unlike Bitcoin,  no merchants accept PTS as a medium of exchange (yet) and it's not intended to be one.

Changing the deal, for better or worse, is dangerous because it compromises confidence. The majority can always vote to get more benefits at the expense of future generations/participants. The is the pitfall for most democratic system and the reason why social security has become a ponzi's scheme.  (http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/quinn/2008/1216.html)

Bitcoin solved this problem by hardcoding the money creation logic, PTS/BTS doesn't have one, and that's very dangerous.

Bitcoin isn't perfect and Bitcoin is a currency not a DAC. In my opinion there has to be a way for employees to renegotiate their contract. It should be formal and those formal rules should be enforced through code rather than just a social contract but there has to be a way to do this.

I don't think you can hardcode logic into everything. You need some artificial intelligence for a DAC to function and evolve over time. For example if Proof of Work turns out to be not as good we are stuck with it because that is the terms of the social contract. I'd be willing to go with that approach provided we stick to all of the terms of the original social contract.

If we are going to keep those terms then there must be 21 million Bitshares and those Bitshares should be mined by Proof of Work because that is what people agreed for when it was announced there would be 21 million. I don't think the price of PTS would be this high if people found out there would be 21 million by Proof of Stake.

I'm of the opinion that when a blockchain launches, the social contract is effectively set in stone.   Bitcool nailed it, it is BAD for existing stakeholders like ourselves to vote ourselves a better deal because it comes at the obvious expense of those who would join the project after us.  I would not join a project that engaged in that type of behavior, and I wouldn't be an investor in a project that did either.  I want Invictus to succeed, and in order to do that they need to be beyond reproach and obviously in this for the right reasons.   

When you make a deal, keep your word.  No other option

I agree with you. Money isn't everything. Trust and reputation are more important.

But in the original contract they did state that they could launch a Protoshares 2.0 and that it would honor the original Protoshares 1.0. If they do that and significantly change the way things work then it puts more risk on the people holding Protoshares 1.0, more uncertainty in the market, and from a game theory perspective the people who had certain strategies to increase their holdings now have to change their strategies.

If nothing changes and the social contract stays exactly as it is for Protoshares and Bitshares I don't think there would be much issue. The issue is that they claim they want to remove mining and move to transaction based Proof of Stake. This is a fine idea but you cannot remove that in my opinion without changing the social contract because while it makes sense to mine 21 million Bitshares over 10 years it does not make sense to do the same thing with Proof of Stake because when people mined Protoshares they were under the impression that when Bitshares came out they would also be able to re-use their mining equipment which they purchased to mine Bitshares.

That is the reason miners are upset. Some miners spent their money purchasing new hardware to mine Protoshares, Bitshares and other Proof of Momentum based blockchains and now there is talk of cancelling all of that. Mining cannot be compared to a lottery either, at this point it is a business and while it is too centralized and there are problems associated with it we may be stuck with it for Bitshares. If Bitshares cannot be mined then a lot of people will be upset if they are not able to renegotiate the deal.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 11:06:59 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads