I support contests or giveaways as a means of bringing people in. As long as we are giving away some of it, we should maximize the value to the PTS holders who are debased by it.
This is exactly your problem, the original deal was you were giving away ALL OF IT and competing to get some of your own on the free market. Now you are proposing to renegotiate the deal so everyone coming in after you has to buy it from you.
Your actions are an attempt to avoid botnets and cloud miners but the perception to the vast majority of users is that where they had opportunity before, now they don't. "As long as we're giving some of it away" is the wrong approach, if you wanted to have that kind of control you shouldn't have tied your reputation to a social contract on a minable equity. That opportunity has passed now.
The only way this will be pallatable is if you ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as discussed previously, otherwise you've built a walled garden where investors you meet at vegas can play but not the little guy. I appreciate anyone can pay, but not everyone can pay the way you're requiring with the new system.
Perhaps I am just too rational in how I view mining (as a miner).... I stopped mining and just purchased PTS and have long recommend others do the same. I have since identified that mining does not result in decentralization (our primary goal) and have developed some proof-of-stake ideas that would make mining unnecessary for its original purpose (security).
So now that we got 90% of the money supply back I want to maximize its value.
To claim that I am selling it (and keeping it as a profit) is to completely pervert the concept of investing. Miners are selling it and keeping it as a profit, I am offering to spend 100% of funds received building and deploying DACs... how many PTS miners are willing to spend 100% of the profits they received re-investing in the ecosystem? Most take their profits and buy new computers, tablets, and other toys for themselves.
The elephant in the room here is that in the name of the 'little guy' who may mine perhaps 1% of future coins, the 'big miners' and "bot nets" will mine the other 99% for a profit and dump it.
So I think we can agree to ALLOCATE a fixed % to go to inclusive initiatives as that will satisfy the 1% of PTS that would go to the little guy. That contests and promotional activities are a better use for that 1% and that PTS holders and miners will have gained more as a result of these proposals than if we changed nothing.
If the only place people can acquire PTS is to pay Bitcoins to your mining fund, which then gets them a split of the PTS created proportional to their contribution that is called a group auction and yes you are selling them. You can dress it up like mining but don't kid yourself, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fucking duck.
You realists all have the same problem, you only care about reality when you make your judgements. YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE FROM DAY ONE THEY CAN MINE IT WITH THEIR COMPUTERS. Just because you were wrong about that, and it's not true doesn't make it OK for you to change the rules mid-stream and say "Oh well they would have only gotten one percent so we'll devote one percent and keep the other 99kPTS profit per week for things we think deserve funding.
The offer was "Mine with us!" and now it's "Pay us to mine for you!" which is VERY DIFFERENT because one is as a peer and the other is with you as master, suddenly recieving revenue that was not yours to claim.
It doesn't matter what you want to do, it matters what you committed to. Deliver on your promises then try to change the deal. If every time you get a good idea you modify the arrangement NOBODY WILL TRUST THE ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING. The whole advantage of crypto is it takes out the arbitrary
sheesh, you're a brilliant guy but it seems like you're just not getting this.
Seriously, where is marketing? Why are you still the only one posting in this very important and frankly terrifying thread.
Topic: Angel Shares Feedback Requested (Read 116235 times)
