Angel Shares Feedback Requested

[bytemaster]

Ok guys... this thread has gotten a bit out of hand and most people have not been able to read the whole thing.   I am going to lock it and create a new thread to discuss potential options.    Great discussion everyone, these are not easy topics.


To summarize:  PTS will not be changed in any way and will be honored as is for 10% in all Invictus chains.

[que23]

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.

I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.

There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.

The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.

The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.

Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely.

I think we are really close to being on the same page. But proof of work is dead. There will be no hybrid model. Bitshares will work off proof of stake with no need for mining more shares. But not to worry. What we could do is let people continue to mine protoshares. Angel shares would add on top of that but only about another 1 million by the Bitshare release date. Then when Bitshares is released in Q1, PTS holders will have about 50% of the shares in Bitshares making protoshares hugely profitable. You can continue to mine protoshares and get an even bigger stake in the next DAC release. Now, by that time there will be more angel shares, but not 21 million. And if you can, you can grab a piece of the angel share action too.

[luckybit]

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.

I'm not defending the miners who mine for profit and then day trade. I'm defending miners who are mining at a loss and who are holding with the expectation that this DAC idea and Bitshares will be a success. They built rigs or set up businesses around the mining industry and are mining and I suppose you could say for some people it might be profitable but not really. The real profit will only come for them if they talk and hype the value of their Protoshares up which is why I say miners can be used as viral marketers and undercover grassroots marketing.

There are some people who mined from the beginning who only have maybe 100-200 Protoshares. They mined at a loss and now they want the Protoshares to be worth as much as possible. They'll be the biggest advocates because they are the shareholders with the most to lose.

The botnets suck and I agree with you that they leech off the economy. The mining pool centralization sucks and is a threat to the security of the network. We need to solve those two problems without hurting the miners who actually have small amounts and who could not afford to get Protoshares by buying it. Now they have Protoshares and should be treated with respect for the time investment they made setting up rigs, building rigs, selling rigs and paying electricity.

The best transition is to go with the hybrid model and slowly phase out mining. Bitshares could be a hybrid, you throw a bone to the miners of 1 million Bitshares to Proof of Work and then the other 1 million to Proof of Stake. This will allow miners to get the last chance to mine and get as many Bitshares from it as possible while the infrastructure is set up to begin the marketing contests funded by angel investors.

Without Keyhotee you don't even have a way to credit people who are successful working for a DAC marketing the idea. So put Keyhotee out first and develop a crediting and reputation system before phasing out mining entirely. Otherwise all this talk about promises of contests, bounties and jobs for everyone is just empty when you don't have funding of infrastructure in place.

[que23]

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

I think one of the options we could decide on is to let protoshares run its course and start angel shares in January. That was the only deal miners could count on anyway. Invictus has always been conspiring to cut mining for profit out. In fact, you weren't suppose to be able to mine protoshares for profit either.

[luckybit]

Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares.  We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market. 

It's not going to be 90% if you want the angel investing built in. So even you admit it has to be 80% or less if you have to give 10% to angel investors.

If you go with a hybrid model you can still set aside some shares to be mined so that miners don't lose but they don't need 80% because miners aren't necessary to secure the network. Since transactions would secure the network you have 10%-15% for PTS, 10% for angels, that is only 35%. You still have 75% for miners and for Proof of Stake.

Lets look at the numbers.

2 million is the original amount for PTS. Let's say it's made into 2.5 million. Let's say 1.5 million for Angels. You still have 2 million for Proof of Work & Proof of Stake.

Or you could say 2 million for PTS as in the idea you proposed and 2 million for angels. Now you add 1 million for Proof of Work and 1 million for Proof of Stake for a total of 6 million Bitshares. Everyone wins.

Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them.  This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.

Not at all. Everyone must feel like they are winning or you cannot make a deal.

But even if PTS holders are given nothing at all (which I don't recommend from a deal making perspective), it's still 2 million, 2 million, 2 million for a total of 6 million. 21 million just isn't necessary.

Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.

Okay, so what is wrong with 2, 2, 2. That is even for everyone involved.
PTS get no additional benefits but since there are less Bitshares in total now the value of their shares are worth more. Miners are less necessary but those who do mine will be mining something more scarce so their Bitshares will be worth more now even if they mine less of them. Angel investors will now be able to invest and build it all up.

As far as I can see everyone wins.

Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining.  I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it.  Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.

I don't agree with them selling it either. I never agreed with 50% will be sold. My favorite plan is 2.5 for PTS, 1.5 for Angel investors, and 2 for the hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake mining.

Honestly though if it were 2 PTS, 2.5 Angels, and 1.5 for the hybrid Proof of Work and Proof of Stake mining that would be just as favorable in my opinion.

But the idea of 2, 2, and then 17 is ridiculous. PTS holders should get at least 2 million Bitshares no matter what. Angels can get between 1.5 and 2.5 million Bitshares. Hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake should get between 1.5 and 2 million Bitshares.

That is fair.

[que23]

Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares.  We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market. 

Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them.  This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.  Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.

Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining.  I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it.  Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.

Yes, you do make a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining your position.

So, Bitcoin has this same problem where people are outraged that people who got in early made money. This is a little silly if Bitcoin is viewed as a corporation. Who would be outraged if a company made money. Generally people are use to companies making money. Altcoins have a currecy-like, commodity-like and share-like property to them. So people are confused about how they should think about them. But I think we should see Bitshares as a service and as a business. When people buy bitshares to use the bitshares service they will be doing so to use the service, not in hopes that bitshares will triple in price. Letting them mine Bitshares for nothing is a type of bribery too.

[luckybit]

Crash the price.that's what u want.Good job,bytemaster!You made it!

If we took the original proposal, PTS should go up 10x the current price. Also, Invictus doesn't benefit from protoshares. And it's debatable if it's worked to bring in the talent the project needs to grow. People are willing to work, but they need money.

Expand the economy. Don't take money from miners to pay programmers. That is the only problem I had with the original proposal. I think Super3 and I have outlined that you have to throw a bone to miners. The hybrid proposal allows for that and you can also reduce the amount of Bitshares if there will be a lot less need to mine them due to Proof of Stake.

Honestly no one has made the case why having 21 million Bitshares is necessary if it does not take 10 years of mining. So how many Bitshares is necessary? As much as can be mined between when mining starts and when mining is phased out to be replaced by Proof of Stake. This way you still have some mining and you give miners a chance to transition without removing mining entirely. Also the shares they do mine will be much more scarce so they'd win there as well.

So for that reason cut 21 million to something reasonable like 4-5 million and then go with hybrid Proof of Work Proof of Stake where Proof of Work is slowly phased out. Everyone wins. The main area we'd need consensus on is the cut off point.

Super3 could also give more detail on his plan, does it include a cut off? Is it 21 million Bitshares in the hybrid model and how many would go for Proof of Work or Proof of Stake etc?

[Lighthouse]

Yes, at the expense of people who haven't yet gotten into Bitshares.  We go from having 90% being distributed via mining which is perceived to be free and available to anyone (because we keep talking about how CPU minable Momentum is) to Invictus selling 50% into the market. 

Of course thats a better deal for existing holders of Protoshares, but the deal is already plenty good for them.  This will make it seem like the people who are already in are voting themselves a better deal, or being bribed.  Either one is a bad outcome, the deal is plenty good already - The focus should be on raising the funds required and maximizing the equitable distribution of Bitshares through non-monetary means.

Thats a fancy way of saying take the part we like about mining (that anybody can do it, in theory, and be rewarded) and do it with something other than mining.  I've already proposed educational games that reward with it, contests, sponsoring DAC specific media with it, lots of ways you can spread it around the ecosystem without just selling it.  Be a little creative, because going from 90% will be mined to 50% will be sold looks very bad and that's unfortunate because it doesn't have to be.

[que23]

If Angel Shares started in Jan. and Bitshares came out in March, then that's like 10 weeks times 100,000 shares, plus the PTS shares that are out now.... Does that mean Bitshares will only have somewhere over 2,000,000 shares period? If so, wouldn't that mean the current price of PTS are undervalued?

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wanted to repost this. If you believe in the service that Bitshares will provide is extremely valuable. You should be jumping up and down right now.

[luckybit]

Link?

Sorry, didn't you read the white paper the put out a couple of weeks ago. http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1138.0

I've read lots and lots of whitepapers including this one.

I don't have the technical background to know if it's an awesome idea. Super3 says people are excited about it and others are looking into implementing it. But I think the heart of the issue is that miners are employees of the DAC. But, it's now not known if the DAC should be wasting resources on them, who are in turn handing their money to the electric company. Invictus wants to redirect those resources to speed up development, create more sites explaining and promoting bitshares and get higher quality videos and presentations and everything else we need to grow.

If you were a part time miner who worked for the electric company you would think differently. Miners were part of the original social contract. A hybrid approach is the only acceptable compromise. If you go with the hybrid approach miners are not left out of the equation but their impact will be gradually diminished over time which gives the economic ecosystem time to adjust.

I think Super3's plan is the plan I endorse as it's the most fair. We should transition to the transaction based Proof of Stake but it should be tested in a hybrid model and Bitshares provides the opportunity to test it. In addition I think the 10% 10% 80% leaving 80% unaccounted for is senseless. Why keep the 80% if its just going to dilute the 20%? If the mining is supposed to be something we transition away from what is the 80% for if not for miners?

Super3 said 15% for PTS, 10% for angel shares and then that is still only 35%. You still have 75% to use for hybrid mining but if there will be no mining.

Everyone is happy and everyone gets a win.

[que23]

I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.

Nobody cares about mining, we care about the social contract being changed in any way whether good or bad.   Change is the enemy, the social contract must not be violated or it sets a precedent that Invictus can change the rules of the handshake deal whenever they want.  Do you want that?

Once a blockchain is released, the social contract that surrounds it needs to be treated like an immutable object.  Static, out of reach even of the best intentioned.   For examples of why this is better than letting a benevolent caretaker organization address events as the arise, see: Federal Reserve, et al.

So how does Angel Shares hurt the contract? It improves it. The original angel proposal would give PTS holders 50% stake in Bitshares! And we would still get 10% if not more with future DACs.

[bytemaster]

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'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.

Thanks wngdng77, I would gladly accept such a donation and would apply it to your Keyhotee ID.  However, this is not a charity case.... and wngdng77 should receive compensation for his support of the project in the form of increased equity.    Please hold your donation until we see if Lighthouse's plan will work for everyone.

[Lighthouse]

I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.

Nobody cares about mining, we care about the social contract being changed in any way whether good or bad.   Change is the enemy, the social contract must not be violated or it sets a precedent that Invictus can change the rules of the handshake deal whenever they want.  Do you want that?

Once a blockchain is released, the social contract that surrounds it needs to be treated like an immutable object.  Static, out of reach even of the best intentioned.   For examples of why this is better than letting a benevolent caretaker organization address events as the arise, see: Federal Reserve, et al.

[que23]

I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page. There will be no windfall mining of Bitshares. They have been actively working to prevent any unfair mining for all future DACs. There has been a lot of talk about this on other threads. If you think you know a way to defeat their new system, then you should tell them, so they can fix it.

[que23]

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'm right with you, Lighthouse.
Bytemaster, I can donate 5% of all my PTS to you if you really need it.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. What you really want is to be able to mine Bitshares. That's the other 80%?