Author Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested  (Read 45287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lighthouse

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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
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.

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.

That would be fine but Bytemaster has talked about moving to a Proof of Stake system. That dramatically changes the value proposition for PTS holders. 21 million Bitshares only made sense in the context of having to mine them but if it's a Proof of Stake system then it does not make any sense at all anymore to have 21 million.

Even if PTS holders don't get any more than the agreed upon deal of 2 million, I think it should be 2 million out of 4 million if it's Proof of Stake not because of PTS holders but because I cannot find a reason why you would need 21 million if it's not going to be mined over a very long period of time. If it's Proof of Stake and does not need to be mined at all then the only way to get coins is to invest.

If the contract were to stay exactly the same with Proof of Work then everyone already accepts that deal. That would be the easiest proposition to make, just add an Angelcoin to the current deal. If they want to go with Proof of Stake though then that changes things for me.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Lighthouse

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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I don't think the deal should be improved for existing Protoshares holders, that deal should just be the deal. 
If you improve the deal you can get instant support. I'd support it. I think 21 million Bitshares is way too many even if you give 20% to PTS holders because then you have 80% which I presume aren't going to be mined so it's Proof of Stake?

I see some security advantages of a Proof of Stake system so I'd be willing to go with that if it's superior but to do that should mean PTS holders get 50% of Bitshares. That would mean 2 million to PTS holders and 2 million to whomever else. I think you cannot get more fair than 50/50.
If PTS holders want to sell their PTS to Invictus in exchange for AngelCoins, that's a voluntary endorsement by PTS holders of the new AngelCoins idea and if the price is advantageous you'll find people doing that.
No one should want or have to sell their PTS. If you're a long term holder making an investment you aren't selling, you're loaning. It's more like a bond scenario and honestly it should be treated more like a bond which gets paid back and then you might have people loan out their PTS. To tell people to buy something which they are guaranteed to get a proportion of by default does not make sense to me because buying it has risks which you don't have just holding.

I think if you promise 50% to PTS holders by default and then give the other 50% to angel investors that is fair.
Regarding the number of coins, one of the dangers Mastercoin faces is someone forking it and creating a version that has more opportunity for people to buy into them, I believe all mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals which sounds pretty centralized to me.

I helped distribute Mastercoins to individuals and it's not true that all Mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals. It is true that Mastercoin distribution is too heavily centralized which is why I helped to run the giveaway thread.

I think you can do giveaways to make it so that Bitshares are more decentralized but the way it's looking now the Bitshares community isn't very centralized in the distribution. In my opinion while it does have some problems and could be better it's a lot more decentralized than Bitcoin or Mastercoin.

I don't think producing more coins is a smart way to decentralize distribution of the currency. The way to create the maximum number of stakeholders is to give the coins away in small portions which get smaller over time. This way anyone who ever wants a stake can get a stake for free without having to mine it. The problem is where do you get the coins to do these giveaways?

But I do agree with you that you need the giveaway process to circulate the flow of stakes to as many hands as possible. 21 million coins or 4 million? 4 million coins would be worth more to all who hold them while 21 million coins would dilute the base.  Since 4 million coins are highly divisible there is no reason to ever dilute the currency to distribute the coins. This is not like stocks in the real world or like real life coins where you cannot break them up smaller in smaller. Since these coins can be broken up and divided we should just go with 4 million or if you want to have some coins for giveaways 4.5 million and then use the divisibility to allow millions of people to own 0.1 billions with 0.01 and so on. I don't think there will be a problem doing it this way.





« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:57:48 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline pgbit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.


Who besides me would support this?
This seems smart. It doesn't change the initial dynamics of Protoshares, but still offers current holders the opportunity to invest. It might be widely publicised in advance that a protoshare will lead to guaranteed 'access' to obtain an angelcoin or angelshare, if someone wants to invest more btc (this would have a positive effect on the value of pts). If there is no shortage of larger investors, this will also offer original shareholders the possibility to enlarge their stake if they so wish, without being swamped by massive investors. Surely DACs require equivalent wallet setups with a 'mining' or computational facility to number crunch the DAC processes - in essence meaning that we are still mining with DACs to ensure that processes are decentralised. Keeping the mining theme alive - but minimising the need for it - might be the wisest choice during these rapid evolutionary phases.

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
I don't think the deal should be improved for existing Protoshares holders, that deal should just be the deal.  If PTS holders want to sell their PTS to Invictus in exchange for AngelCoins, that's a voluntary endorsement by PTS holders of the new AngelCoins idea and if the price is advantageous you'll find people doing that.

Regarding the number of coins, one of the dangers Mastercoin faces is someone forking it and creating a version that has more opportunity for people to buy into them, I believe all mastercoins are held by less than 1000 individuals which sounds pretty centralized to me.

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 luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.


Who besides me would support this?

I support this idea with some minor changes. I think the job board or allocation of funds should eventually be decentralized. Mastercoin is starting out centralized but there is a plan to decentralize the dev Mastercoin scheme along the lines of Proof of Stake voting. As long as the community has a way to vote on new features and vote on the proportions of where the money goes I will support it.

If Invictus Innovation basically treats it as theirs and they hire employees in the dark without giving voting rights then I don't support it. Give voting rights via Proof of Stake and let the community decide how to distribute the funds. If there are multiple candidates for programmer position in a long term employment contract then let the free market decide who gets hired by peer vote.

Of course early on I think Invictus Innovations should decide but the social contract should include voting rights which get phased in after a period of time. This way the DACs can get built quickly but with the knowledge that once they are near completion the control over future development decisions will be recycled back into the community.

That is all really. I think I like your idea. I think the original contract should be upheld as much as possible. The only other refinement I would make is I would probably reduce the amount of Bitshares. There does not need to be 21 million Bitshares. I always thought that was too many. There are only 619k Mastercoins. There were something like 400,000 Asicminer shares. There are 2 million Protoshares. I think there should be 4 million Bitshares.

This would mean that the current PTS holders would get 50% of Bitshares in exchange for signing onto the new Proof of Stake based system no matter what happens with Angelcoins. 50% ownership is better than 10/20%.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:41:43 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline phoenix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.


Who besides me would support this?

I would support this, except it overlooks the fact that bitshares is scheduled to be launched in under 21 months, so we would need to change the creation rate of Protoshares 2.0
Protoshares: Pg5EhSZEXHFjdFUzpxJbm91UtA54iUuDvt
Bitmessage: BM-NBrGi2V3BZ8REnJM7FPxUjjkQp7V5D28

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:

1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.

2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.

I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.

AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.

I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model,  many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.

This is precisely the result of the OP.  Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value. 

Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense.  Stop posting, you are making things worse.   Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.

This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
This. +1

I think the purpose of these forums is to have these debates on how to improve PTS and DAC projects. I support that Bytemaster came to the community for feedback and believe it was the right thing to do.

It also highlights that there is a serious problem. We need investment capital, and we need to work with the metaphor that in a DAC we are all employees or contractors for the DAC. To put it simple, we all should have roles within the DAC infrastructure and the miner if it is no longer a viable role in the infrastructure of future DACs then just like any corporation would do you have to now retrain miners into a new role so that they can continue to contribute without feeling left out.

The way this idea was proposed has made miners feel left out. It was not proposed with contests, giveaways, jobs, bounties, and other opportunities so that people who used to mine could potentially move onto something better. It was presented as if miners should just find something else to do or cough up money to pay for their position in the DAC.

The whole point of a market is so people can work to get value. If the DAC is asking for money and investment as input but isn't giving jobs as output then you will have people who will hesitate. I want to see plenty of jobs going to the little people of the community before I can get behind this idea. Not everybody is a C++ programmer and the problem with the Bitcoin community right now is there does not seem to be much diversity in the kinds of jobs that exist for people who are not technical. In the real world most jobs are not technical and most people in any business are not programmers but in the Bitcoin community it's 90% of the rewards going to programmers and maybe 10% to everyone else.

Mining is the one place where anyone can get started and potentially make a long term profit if the price of PTS does go up x100.


« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:14:20 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pocket Sand

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Essentially, the proposed change is an admission of two things:

1. Ripple model -- a centralized entity controlling money supply, issuing coins instead of mining them -- is better than Bitcoin model.

2. The MasterCoin model is better than the original PTS model, again, centralized control of funds.

I understand there may be some funding difficulty as the result of this, but to me these are not the right direction we should move to, there got to be better alternatives.

AFAIK, Ripple has some pretty deep pocket investors backing them, probably deeper than the ones you meet in Vegas, but as an investor, I won't touch it even with a 10 foot pole.

I had expected something like this would happen but didn't think it would come this early. The handling of this will not only have impact on the future of I3 and DACs, but also this type of business model,  many will be watching how this plays out with great interest.

This is precisely the result of the OP.  Invictus needs to deliver before they do anything else, and talking about changing the deal is arguably worse than actually changing the deal because it introduces uncertainty in the value. 

Where oh where is someone with a lick of marketing sense.  Stop posting, you are making things worse.   Talk to your team and if they can't explain to you why this whole exercise was really stupid you should get a new team.

This is real money for us as it is for you and your family, appreciate that introducing uncertainty even if you have good intentions is a much worse situation than just shutting up until you've figured out a plan that will actually work.
This. +1

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

You can't change protoshares to exclude people not willing to pay you (invictus) money.  Try to think about this as an opportunity to engage and collaborate.   I told you, the solution is to allocate a fixed % of PTS or BTC revenue to educational initiatives that reward people for learning about your products, giveaways you should probably set up some bounties to spark some grassroots media that focuses entirely on DACs.   If you're removing the mining incentive from the picture, replace it with things people can do that they are rewarded for but doesn't feel like work.  Telling people to market your product and make sure their "friend" uses their code feels exploitative, like you're selling something.  Rewarding people for learning is just smart.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The greatest aspect of the whole DAC and Protoshares movement is that it creates a wide web of opportunity where anyone has a chance to make a living. This in my opinion should include miners who instead of being told there is no further use for them in the eco-system should instead be repurposed/retrained into different but equally fundamental roles.

Miners should in my opinion be made into viral marketing teams when and if we move to Proof of Stake. They can blog, they can tweet, they have Facebook, they can explain these concepts and bring in new investment. They should be rewarded for bringing in new investors somehow perhaps by a referral based business model so that instead of mining they get benefits, status or something else through referrals. The point is to keep everyone from the smartest developer to the person who speaks several languages to the person who can just write and read.

Anyone who can communicate can contribute to the potential value of PTS. Any miner can speak, refer, and promote. So it's not just about bringing in developers but also about marketing. There should of course be bounties but I think we need a much more formal and decentralized way of divvying the work load. I don't know how to do it yet but if we are going to treat everyone as employees in these DACs then we need to create the infrastructure to actually track the contributions by Keyhotee ID and reward them.

It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?

In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.

I think Proof of Work can be changed to Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake is probably better overall but I don't think they can make the change mid stream. Protoshares is currently being mined and people are mining it at a loss because they believe it's going to be worth a lot a year from now or six months from now.

The long term value of Protoshares is very important, but the ideas proposed in this thread seem to promote a short term increase in value at great risk to the long term value proposition. Also it may potentially exclude people who were already involved to invite new rich money into it who want to throw millions.

We need to accommodate the people already involved. Find a way to provide jobs for them first. If you don't have money to pay them then credit them so that their work is registered in a blockchain so that when you do have money to pay them (after you get millions of investment from rich investors) you can pay the small people who were willing to work for the project.

Promoting the value of PTS increasing isn't really paying anyone because not everyone is in it for short term profit. Some people wont want to sell their PTS in 2014 no matter what happens because they are long term supporters. I know I won't be selling any PTS at these prices and even if it went as high as 0.1 I would not sell. Mastercoins already are at 0.1+ and I'm not selling until it's a lot higher.

There has to be a way to pay people and then you have to circulate that money back into investment. So I agree with the goal of creating a sustainable eco-system. I don't agree with the timing and I don't think that method can work if it puts PTS at risk. Create a new DAC.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=998.0
I proposed the idea of a GetWork DAC for precisely this reason and had the exact same concern. I wanted a DAC to allow people to find jobs to do to develop Protoshares and other DACs and get paid for it or credited for it.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 09:11:30 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gloine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?

In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I believe we have presented the best solution for everyone but the miners who now have to find more productive ways to earn a living.   

  ::)

I guess the first part of me finding a more productive way to earn a living will be dumping PTS.

What Bytemaster does not understand is that miners are doing the viral marketing. It could be organized by Invictus Innovations but there is no real need for centralized marketing at this time when everyone with a stake can be encouraged to market Protoshares to increase the value of their shares.

This is why it's important to have a large, wide and diverse community of stakeholders. Millions of dollars flooding in could get Bitshares developed faster but there is no particular rush to do so in my opinion. The price will go up on it's own.

I do think it would be a good idea to figure out how to get investment into the market but it probably should not disrupt things for people already invested. Angel shares is a fine idea as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone who already mined or invested.

Miners can be encouraged to do work by having bounties. Create jobs and miners with small amounts of Protoshares will be willing to spend some of their free time to increase their holdings. In fact if you were to build a credit system right now you could always get people to work now for free and agree to pay them later when Invictus Innovation does have the money to give something back, but you should not change the social contract or adjust whatever the deal was for the previous wave of miners.

The new wave of miners should be encouraged to work to build value for this project. We need to use a specific currency just to credit this labor and it should not be Protoshares. Maybe distribute angel shares in a decentralized manner with voting similar to what Mastercoin is going to do with it's Dev Mastercoins. Reputation does matter and if people could be credited for their work within Keyhotee then you can get people to do work.

You wont get full time developers right away, but I also don't think it costs as much because if people really believe Protoshares have value and they have a significant amount then they can hire developers themselves outside of Invictus Innovations. You don't need Invictus Innovations to crowdfund a DAC.

You can crowdfund a DAC through Havelock using Bitcoins if you're not an American citizen. You can also crowdfund a fact using Bitcoinstarter or Kickstarter if you are an American. PiperWallet and TrezorWallet were both crowdfunded on Kickstarter.

My advice would be to start up a Kickstarter and crowdfund the development of a DAC for people who have millions of dollars and who want to contribute. Give them some sufficient prizes and tribute in return for their funding out of whatever the DAC produces.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Lighthouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
  • Making a Market in PTS since 11/06/2013
    • View Profile
    • Lighthouse Bulk Orders and Trusted Escrow (Closed)
I would encourage the creation of PTS 2.0 (Angelcoins) that would be another 10% of Bitshares's 21 million, so 20% of total Bitshares would be claimed at the beginning through these two rounds of "venture".

THESE you could use in the way you want, where you let people invest weekly and they get a % of the Angelshares proportional to their Bitcoin or Protoshares contribution (and you should probably accept protoshares at a premium relative to Bitcoins)

2.1 million would be  21 months @ 100k Angelcoins per month - The deal stays the same with Protosharesholders, you get to raise a shitload of money to finance multiple DACs at once and try your new mechanism.

Most importantly, you haven't committed to what you'll do with the other 80%, so when you really solve the problem and have the RIGHT idea you won't have tied yourself down like you're trying to do with this 100% to PTS holders nonsense.


Who besides me would support this?
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.