Angel Shares Feedback Requested

[billotronic]

1. Don't code botnet friendly coins and botnets wont swarm to your product
2. There is nothing wrong with being concerned about electric waste in cryptocoins

@bytemaster come join us @ emunie. My udoo draws 7watts while 'mining' at full load. We can save the world together.

[coyote47]

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.

Great news bytemaster! No one thinks this is an easy nut to crack. I want to be a part of your future projects despite holding very few PTS compared to most of the monsters on these boards. It's probably useful to focus on one DAC at a time rather than all future DACs.

[etalon-or]

- Finally the meat - great discusion. I thank you one and all.
 The value of anything comes from thecollective opinion of all parties involved.
The value of III is in providing a fair, decentralized and transparent exchange of ideas, knowledge and a process to advance commerce.  Additional intities can grow by providing new products and services. New contracts with transparent rules can be excepted by new investors or not.
There is no need to outlaw anything. Make new contracts transparent, easy to understand and limited to the job at hand.  Any changes to existing contracts will not be excepted well. It sounds too much like the status Que.
The value comes from giving respect to all,  no premining, no classes of shares or no classes of people or no classes of $s.
$s are capital, something every business needs and after all $s are proof of work, a receipt for work, or at least that was the original story.
Fair, transparent, decentralized and equitable to the individual.
etalon-or

[Lighthouse]

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.

[Lighthouse]

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.

[coyote47]

Many are waiting, many are selling. Price on bter now below .02BTC down from .025BTC last night. 20% drop in value since I started reading this thread.

[bytemaster]

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.

[bitcool]

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.

[coyote47]

Demand for protoshares exploded because in the future we believed they would split into a portion of total bitshares and possibly other coins and shares.  We bought into the concept that miners could power future DACs and be paid back for their efforts in shares.

You are taking miners out of the equation which makes your company the same as any other company.

Plenty of companies want our money and our support.

I get the idea you don't want to sell your protoshares to fund development of new DACs. The details on how DAC were funded were never really fleshed out. Why don't you auction off a portion of new DAC shares for bitcoin as proposed, give a portion to protoshare holders and let miners mine the rest?

I can tell you how I think people will react to your plans but at the same time I acknowledge that coming up with viable, economically sound solutions to funding your development teams is going to be difficult.

I really hope you are getting the message that what you are proposing we aren't buying.

[srcgpsmp]

Yes we will be doing a lot of bounties and providing many ways for people to earn money helping out.   

Bug bounties, translations, market hacking, prizes, etc.   we want to involve everyone and make everyone money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are not going to take this seriously -(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg15028#msg15028)
and only listen to yourself ,your stock (PTS )will go to zero and you can say goodbye to your 20+ market cap...(https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/119)

[luckybit]

I don't favor this idea. It only replaces the kind of risks we had before (cheaters) with new kinds of risk (central point of failure and legal).

Crowd funding can be offered but it has to be done in a specific kind of way or it presents legal issues that most Americans don't want to have to deal with. It's important not to call it a stock, or shares.

You could call it a mining contract but once again where are people supposed to get the money from? Unless there will be a supply of jobs which pay in BTC then where is the BTC supposed to come from to pay for the DACs? If it's just Invictus Innovations trying to get extra money away from Amazon or Digital Ocean then we have to decide if we think it's worth the extra risks associated with this centralization and it is.

We go from a bunch of corporations which are bigger and harder to attack to 1 corporation. When you have to buy mining rigs, pay Amazon or Digital Ocean, at least we can say it's decentralized and enough businesses not associated with Bitcoin will benefit that you can have some sort of political cover. When it's just Invictus Innovations then I believe risk is dramatically increased.

Angel investment is needed but what is the rush? If we wait it out then US crowd funding laws might be favorable and then you could implement this right as an equity crowd funding scheme. I suggest you go that route and offer shares both in Invictus Innovations and in this mining solution and for now mine Protoshares until legal clarity is obtained. I see no point in taking unnecessary legal risk when we are months away from a situation where those legal risks could be dramatically decreased.

I also don't think the economic eco-system is fully built out yet. The community isn't as big as it could be at this time and for people willing to work there does not seem to be enough ways to earn money. If there were more angel investment and it were spread appropriately then you could do this because enough people would be earning money to be able to be investors. At this time I think it's a bit too soon to implement and we need to at least get Keyhotee up and running and also wait for the SEC to describe how equity crowd funding can work. I'm not against the plan I just am not sure this is the right time to implement it.

Mining is preferable because it's not crowd funding so you don't have to deal with the SEC at all. 

[bytemaster]

Yes we will be doing a lot of bounties and providing many ways for people to earn money helping out.   

Bug bounties, translations, market hacking, prizes, etc.   we want to involve everyone and make everyone money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[luckybit]

Aren't you sacrificing the equitable distribution and excitement of the Bitshares rollout?  Now it sounds like you're pre-selling the entire thing, which I'm not sure is ideal.

Actually we are proposing a more equitable distribution... you either pay your electric company, Amazon, or someone else who paid their electric company or Amazon.   Now you pay us and everyone gets a fair shot without having to know how to setup a huge mining farm or consuming a lot of their personal time managing servers.

Instead of favoring people that have access to the Chinese Super Computer or Botnets we give the everyone equal opportunity.

ALL the money currently spent on mining would go flowing back into ecosystem development rather than up in smoke.

It looks like you want to replace mining with crowd funding which I'm not entirely against but...

What about people who don't have any money? are you going to give people a way to earn money by working for you?

If you haven't noticed, Bitcoins are really expensive now. Protoshares are really expensive now. You need to provide some jobs so anyone can have a way to work for it otherwise you'll be centralizing the distribution of Protoshares.

[bytemaster]

Can you explain where you thought pts derived its value and how that value proposition would change based on news that new dacs are getting funded? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GentleGnome]

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.

Same here.