Author Topic: Precise numbers on dilution?  (Read 16353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

There are more than just a couple projects being worked on that could eventually help bitshares.  Those are a couple.  At this point a lot of the price decline has just been due to market/bitAsset bugs, so fixing those bugs and making it so people can trade again and the client isnt buggy could help a ton.  And bitAssets 3.0. 

Basically people have been indiscriminately dumping the hell out of BTS because the market was broken.  Gotta fix the market.


In the future when people want back in, those of us who held need to refuse to sell to them. ;)  They dumped it from 5000 sats to 2000.  When Bitshares starts doing well again and these people want back in, we should all just refuse to sell for under 5000 sats. 

(Of course, there will always be those that sell and those that buy, thats what makes a market.  What I am saying is that when Bitshares finally breaks the downtrend and begins to rally again, people need to hold off on selling until prices are good again.  Dont hold all the way down and then sell early into a rise, that makes no sense).

Do you not see how the conditional release of vested distribution would encourage people not to sell at cheap prices?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

I don't know the status of Gemspace. Was there supposed to be an interview or announcement?

MineBitShares is interesting and seems to be one of the few marketing initiatives showing decent results but personally I'm waiting for moonstone and BitAssets 3.0. A very easy to use simple client that lets you get in and out of BitAssets in reasonable quantities for less than a few %. (Plus things like cryptosmith are also very positive.)

Once you get that product right, the climate is such that there is a real need for these BitAssets, so I really see them taking off in spite of BTS not necessarily being the most optimal vehicle for them.

Our delegate has deployed 11.5% of its collective pay toward minebitshares.  I personally think we should be bold and have at least 3-4 delegates for minebitshares.  I also think we should vote in the delegate for cryptosmith. 
If it were up to me, in fact, I'd put as many f'ng delegates as I could to making minebitshares a huge push. 
Coupled with cryptosmith, miners would be able to mine real gold and silver directly to their doorstep...imagine all the people who would switch to using bitshares overnight.

It is our fear and unwillingness to use the tools we have that causes the most problems for us imho.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 12:05:26 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Price decline hasnt been due to marketing efforts, its mostly been due to lack of delivery of the product.

If Bitcoin wasn't hit by POW pressure who knows how everything would be different.  No one but true believers want to keep their money in BTC and every crypto's price if pegged to BTC in some manner.

One of the biggest problems is merchants have not adopted bitshares. At least one has been able to buy useful stuff with bitcoin. When the architect of BitSharesX decided that a whole new API would be better, it was probably the largest mistake ever made in the project. At least with Bitcoin I can take my BTC and instantly go buy things all over. As the price drops this problem worsens.  Sure we have shopping carts but crypto's heart has always been in niche services related to privacy.

I think at this point any marketer we get we should not put too high of expectations into them as it will be a very tough job. I don't like to post much because I have nothing to contribute but negativity and that doesn't help people on here who I like on a personal level. These people are investing a lot of their time and passion into this project. I can only hope Dan can finish a stable 1.0 product and we see a near optimal solution to a bitasset system.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

There are more than just a couple projects being worked on that could eventually help bitshares.  Those are a couple.  At this point a lot of the price decline has just been due to market/bitAsset bugs, so fixing those bugs and making it so people can trade again and the client isnt buggy could help a ton.  And bitAssets 3.0. 

Basically people have been indiscriminately dumping the hell out of BTS because the market was broken.  Gotta fix the market.


In the future when people want back in, those of us who held need to refuse to sell to them. ;)  They dumped it from 5000 sats to 2000.  When Bitshares starts doing well again and these people want back in, we should all just refuse to sell for under 5000 sats. 

(Of course, there will always be those that sell and those that buy, thats what makes a market.  What I am saying is that when Bitshares finally breaks the downtrend and begins to rally again, people need to hold off on selling until prices are good again.  Dont hold all the way down and then sell early into a rise, that makes no sense).
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Marketing BitShares to the consumer is like marketing an AirBus to the consumer.  Why does a consumer want an AirBus?  We have to market to people who use the AirBus to provide services the consumer wants.

And much of our behind the scenes activities are focused on doing just that.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

zerosum

  • Guest
So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

I don't know the status of Gemspace. Was there supposed to be an interview or announcement?

There is also this big Chinese initiative  - generally hostile takeover of Berkshire Hathaway (or buying one share of it. Cannot recall precisely but one or the other) using the Bitshares platform.... It should be huge also.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

I don't know the status of Gemspace. Was there supposed to be an interview or announcement?

MineBitShares is interesting and seems to be one of the few marketing initiatives showing decent results but personally I'm waiting for moonstone and BitAssets 3.0. A very easy to use simple client that lets you get in and out of BitAssets in reasonable quantities for less than a few %. (Plus things like cryptosmith are also very positive.)

Once you get that product right, the climate is such that there is a real need for these BitAssets, so I really see them taking off in spite of BTS not necessarily being the most optimal vehicle for them.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
So we have to wait for Moonstone? The fate of Bitshares rests in Moonstone and Minebitshares?

I don't know the status of Gemspace. Was there supposed to be an interview or announcement?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

I must be one of the few who usually enjoys a good pump post. Gives hope that something is in the pipeline to save us. At this price all you can really do is hope, lol.

...but it would be nice to know whether or not the "future is bright" posts were actually legit. We've seen time and again that nothing materializes from them.

Stan, is there any way to prove you're serious and that tangible things are soon to happen, without breaking NDA's etc?

don't hold your breath on good news to save us ....
In a bear market , no amount of good news can reverse a down trend if the market is not "adjusted well at the bottom" . Every good news on a down trend will be ignore by the bear market , on the other hand , bad news will have a greater impact because of the trend .

I learned that the hard way when I tried to catch the last train on several really good news along the down trend .

What if there is no bottom?
What if it's just us with no new interest and the dilution, the merger distribution, is just going to result in more sell pressure?

Are we going to be happy when the marketcap is $5 million? how about $1 million? Both are possible due to dilution and the fact that no effective effort is going into marketing.

Marketing is the biggest disappointment. First we had some guy whom I can't remember the name of who promised to bring in big investors. Apparently they came, invested, and dumped.

Then we have this other guy Adam who promises to show a grand plan and again nothing. We see no plans, we see no progress, we see no marketing. It doesn't take a lot to put ads in Google and Facebook. It doesn't take a lot of effort to put ads on coinmarketcap or cointelegraph.

There is no marketing and the longer we wait the lower the market cap gets and the less money there will be for marketing campaigns. When the market cap is only $5 million instead of the $50 million it was before the merger how will you feel about that? If secret sauce marketing is having that effect then we were better off a year ago today.

Ignoring things like the BTS structure (merger etc.) & brand image for the moment, I think rgcrypto gave us a great analysis of where we are this stage.

+5%
That is exactly what I experienced with the tests I ran on Facebook and Twitter. The cost per conversion is too high.
We are not selling socks here. We are selling a pre version 1 software that most people don't understand why they would need that in the first place.

The affiliate system would be a great way to recruits entrepreneurs and businesses who would then go ahead and gain users.

But running ads to attract users to understand bitshares core is a losing game. (It is still valuable to create content and be involved in the media but direct marketing for bitshares core...nah)

Services like MineBitShares, Moonstone, Limewallet, etc are project that could flourish if they gained an affiliate compensation for bringing in users (may reduce the need to go all out politic and run for a delegate position too).


Essentially the product is still too complicated etc. for marketing to be very effective and I think he's even directing his current delegate pay at MineBitShares.

I'm someone who'd love to use a good BitAsset in quantity but I've had zero BitAssets for a while after having to deal with the wallet/bugs/low liquidity etc.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 08:59:54 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
And while there is no marketing for Bitshares, NXT, Dash and others are eating our lunch.

Why?

Because they have marketing effort whether it's effective or not.

Minebitshares is a good start. It has potential. At the same time Bitshares should market itself to south America, to Europe and other places where they don't speak English and haven't heard as much about Bitcoin or other similar competitors.

Bitshares doesn't have good brand recognition in the United States but overseas it's different. In how many languages is Bitshares translated into? It should at least be translated into the major European languages. Also would be good if Korea, Japan, South America, etc all have access to marketing material.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 08:53:10 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Anyone who can say that "nothing has materialized" since I started posting wouldn't recognize a flux capacitor if it bit them in the butt.

:)

I don't have any interest in convincing the skeptics - let them chase the market.

My only interest is helping the loyal faithful avoid doing anything they might regret.
(And to let people know that lack of news in my staff meeting notes does not imply inactivity, disinterest, or lack of progress.)

But wildpig is right, it does no good to waste ammunition until the timing is right.
No point in shooting off my mouth before the command to "fire!"

« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 08:58:04 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Price decline hasnt been due to marketing efforts, its mostly been due to lack of delivery of the product.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

I must be one of the few who usually enjoys a good pump post. Gives hope that something is in the pipeline to save us. At this price all you can really do is hope, lol.

...but it would be nice to know whether or not the "future is bright" posts were actually legit. We've seen time and again that nothing materializes from them.

Stan, is there any way to prove you're serious and that tangible things are soon to happen, without breaking NDA's etc?

don't hold your breath on good news to save us ....
In a bear market , no amount of good news can reverse a down trend if the market is not "adjusted well at the bottom" . Every good news on a down trend will be ignore by the bear market , on the other hand , bad news will have a greater impact because of the trend .

I learned that the hard way when I tried to catch the last train on several really good news along the down trend .

What if there is no bottom?
What if it's just us with no new interest and the dilution, the merger distribution, is just going to result in more sell pressure?

Are we going to be happy when the marketcap is $5 million? how about $1 million? Both are possible due to dilution and the fact that no effective effort is going into marketing.

Marketing is the biggest disappointment. First we had some guy whom I can't remember the name of who promised to bring in big investors. Apparently they came, invested, and dumped.

Then we have this other guy Adam who promises to show a grand plan and again nothing. We see no plans, we see no progress, we see no marketing. It doesn't take a lot to put ads in Google and Facebook. It doesn't take a lot of effort to put ads on coinmarketcap or cointelegraph.

There is no marketing and the longer we wait the lower the market cap gets and the less money there will be for marketing campaigns. When the market cap is only $5 million instead of the $50 million it was before the merger how will you feel about that? If secret sauce marketing is having that effect then we were better off a year ago today.

Everyone has a right to be disappointed. How is it that last year at this time Bitshares had a higher market cap than this year? And what can we tell investors about our horrible chart which shows losses for most of 2014 and 2015? The numbers don't lie and it looks like a pump and dump: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/

Look at that chart
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 08:46:45 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
don't hold your breath on good news to save us ....
In a bear market , no amount of good news can reverse a down trend if the market is not "adjusted well at the bottom" . Every good news on a down trend will be ignore by the bear market , on the other hand , bad news will have a greater impact because of the trend .

I learned that the hard way when I tried to catch the last train on several really good news along the down trend .

I'm pretty sure that significantly huge news would turn a market around before most even have a chance to react. Depends on just how powerful the news is. That seems to be the dilemma with Stan's obscure-style posts -- whether they allude to something truly market-moving and coming in the very near future, or if it's just something the devs think is awesome (and it may very well be) but it isn't market-moving, or it won't materialize in any reasonable amount of time...

I remembered the rise of Bitcoin in late 2013 started with a stupid "good news" that was actually powerless but for some reasons it happened right at a up trend , so the market gave credit to it .

"China big search engine adopted Bitcoin" ......That was the title ...
But in fact , it was just a small operation which only accepted as low as 100USD and ended after a month .

And we see good news bigger than that this year with Bitcoin every month .....and yet ....

A market moving news is useless too if those who has power to drive up the price is not ready to act on the news just yet .

Of course , you can expect small fishes to buy on the good news .... But if price didn't drive up after the news , then small fishes wouldn't believe it's a really good news either , so they'll stay put .

So basically , the real good news is those news that actually happens exactly at the the rising time of the price . News that happens outside of that period is just "fun news" .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
don't hold your breath on good news to save us ....
In a bear market , no amount of good news can reverse a down trend if the market is not "adjusted well at the bottom" . Every good news on a down trend will be ignore by the bear market , on the other hand , bad news will have a greater impact because of the trend .

I learned that the hard way when I tried to catch the last train on several really good news along the down trend .

I'm pretty sure that significantly huge news would turn a market around before most even have a chance to react. Depends on just how powerful the news is. That seems to be the dilemma with Stan's obscure-style posts -- whether they allude to something truly market-moving and coming in the very near future, or if it's just something the devs think is awesome (and it may very well be) but it isn't market-moving, or it won't materialize in any reasonable amount of time...

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

I must be one of the few who usually enjoys a good pump post. Gives hope that something is in the pipeline to save us. At this price all you can really do is hope, lol.

...but it would be nice to know whether or not the "future is bright" posts were actually legit. We've seen time and again that nothing materializes from them.

Stan, is there any way to prove you're serious and that tangible things are soon to happen, without breaking NDA's etc?

Something is in the pipeline to save us - BitAssets 3.0

With negative interest rates increasing, large pension funds are looking to move into cash and even Switzerland of all places is looking to curtail that.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-25/war-cash-migrates-switzerland
So there are very few places that are now safe for cash/Precious metals. The latter may be confiscated or heavily taxed at some stage and also very hard to leave the country with in an emergency.

The market for liquid, easy to use BitAssets is huge. While I stopped trying to use BitAssets 1.0 quite a while ago, I will certainly use BitAssets 3.0 if they're a bit more liquid and with the introduction of Moonstone etc. I'll finally be able to even consider recommending them to others as they'll be more easy to use. Once BitAsset adoption starts increasing month on month the rest is history, even if the BTS vehicle isn't as optimal as it could be.   
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

I must be one of the few who usually enjoys a good pump post. Gives hope that something is in the pipeline to save us. At this price all you can really do is hope, lol.

...but it would be nice to know whether or not the "future is bright" posts were actually legit. We've seen time and again that nothing materializes from them.

Stan, is there any way to prove you're serious and that tangible things are soon to happen, without breaking NDA's etc?

don't hold your breath on good news to save us ....
In a bear market , no amount of good news can reverse a down trend if the market is not "adjusted well at the bottom" . Every good news on a down trend will be ignore by the bear market , on the other hand , bad news will have a greater impact because of the trend .

I learned that the hard way when I tried to catch the last train on several really good news along the down trend .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Stan's posts are great.  +5%

They are creative, intelligent and fun. No wonder BM is a genius.

Offline nomoreheroes7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • King of all the land
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nomoreheroes7
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

I must be one of the few who usually enjoys a good pump post. Gives hope that something is in the pipeline to save us. At this price all you can really do is hope, lol.

...but it would be nice to know whether or not the "future is bright" posts were actually legit. We've seen time and again that nothing materializes from them.

Stan, is there any way to prove you're serious and that tangible things are soon to happen, without breaking NDA's etc?

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

I have to agree. Few things makes me want to sell more than those pump/history rewrite posts.

(Edit: Not that I do, as I'm more objective than that. But yeah pretty annoying and play a role in BTS's low credibility imo.) 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 07:30:42 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

zerosum

  • Guest
Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.

Not been fan of  his picture rich posts...ever. And by ever I mean long before you come around. I do not know if they move markets but sure as hell if they have any effect it is negative. They stopped being anything but a desperation attempt of reassurance that the future is bright. "The proof for that future?" you ask - Here are those cartoon pictures I found... pretty pathetic for everyone who has read more than a few of those. And yes for the last week's one I did say - "Sell the rumor..."

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander

The result of the merger based dilution (not the delegate pay) combined with the total lack of progress on BTS as a result of the merger (or at all) for the last 6 mo. is the sole reason for the price decline from about 4500 satoshi to what we see now. In other words Bitshares of April 2015 is the same buggy client of October 2014 plus two months of market engine bugs...[end to the blind fan boys, spare me the list of all great things that are coming...almost here...almost...]

Agreed, in the list of causes of the price decline (in satoshi terms), it goes:
1) Promises have not been delivered on, everything has been constant delays.  Lack of stable client release with features that were promised months ago.
2) The market/order matching bug. 
3) Merger dilution.

(And maybe some from chinese whales being mad at Follow my Vote getting 30M BTS). 

Oh yeah, also:
4) Stan bullshitting with pump posts primising that secret and amazing things are coming but giving no details.  Notice that this week Stan came out with one of these pump posts for the first time in a while, and BTS dropped over 10% in satoshi terms as a result?


Quote
And let me be the only one in the last several months that have admitted  being for the merger at the time. But I was expecting results and accelerated development and got what - Nothing, the development was/is about frozen, Adam is as involved in BTS as much as he was before getting millions of bitshares to buy him...

Several of us admitted to being pro-merger at the time who now regret it.  Like you, I thought we were going to get more devs working on BTS, and things would go faster than they have.


Quote
100% Delegates need changes as in being separately paid actors (not block producers) and not removal. Running to change something fundamentally anytime the sailing is not as smooth as BM likes is a big mistake. And I personally think it is about time he learns that this brings the big trouble not the fact the current state is not perfect.

I dont know about this.  I think we should avoid changing things unless absolutely necessary.  Because: 1) Change requires development effort and thus delays everything, which is our main problem, everything is constantly taking way longer than expected, and 2) It leads to the perception that Bitshares just keeps changing.  People want stability. 

There are no major problems at all stemming from paid delegates being block producers.  This just is not a big deal.  It is NOT worth prioritizing with developer time above the critical issues that need work.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

zerosum

  • Guest
Can somebody point me to what exactly is discussed here? Apparently it is not in this thread cause everybody is talking whatever is bothering him/her.

As for the exact number of dilution I have posted it elsewhere but I do not think anybody actually cares about that thing.

The result of the merger based dilution (not the delegate pay) combined with the total lack of progress on BTS as a result of the merger (or at all) for the last 6 mo. is the sole reason for the price decline from about 4500 satoshi to what we see now. In other words Bitshares of April 2015 is the same buggy client of October 2014 plus two months of market engine bugs...[end to the blind fan boys, spare me the list of all great things that are coming...almost here...almost...]

And let me be the only one in the last several months that have admitted  being for the merger at the time. But I was expecting results and accelerated development and got what - Nothing, the development was/is about frozen, Adam is as involved in BTS as much as he was before getting millions of bitshares to buy him...

100% Delegates need changes as in being separately paid actors (not block producers) and not removal. Running to change something fundamentally anytime the sailing is not as smooth as BM likes is a big mistake. And I personally think it is about time he learns that this brings the big trouble not the fact the current state is not perfect.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.

Stick with what? Developers randomly screwing with supply? The loss of confidence caused by that move is probably irreversible. This proposal doesn't change supply, just tries to dampen the damage.

Of course it changes supply moving forward.

No one has really established what portion of the fall in price is due to the dilution.  Granted no one really can, but at this point not one has even made a point of attempting an estimation.  This will be more of "changing the deal" and it'll be another stupid bandaid fix like PR.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 03:41:56 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Quote from: luckybit
So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?

This probably will be less damaging than trying to impose changes on the vesting of the merger.

Lets assume I had 500k bts in my wallet and also I'm getting another 100k from the merger, If I wanted to sell the "free-extra-bonus" bts of the merger all I had to do would be to pick the right time and sell 100k bts from my current balance, there would be no need to wait for my vested balances on a daily on monthly basis. On top of that I could sell 100k-200k more because I anticipate others will do the same and the price will keep falling, so I can buy back cheaper later.

I doubt that there is any merger seller out there that actually waits to get his vested bts in the wallet before he sells them, probably most selling has already occurred, any changes now would be more damaging than helpfull. 

 

THIS ^^^

 +5%

edit:

maybe it would do good (or not?) psychologically .... would it end negative speculation?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 02:17:43 pm by liondani »

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.

Stick with what? Developers randomly screwing with supply? The loss of confidence caused by that move is probably irreversible. This proposal doesn't change supply, just tries to dampen the damage.

This is mostly true. It's a tough situation with the merger. The irony is that AGS & PTS holders also probably have non vesting stake in BTS too which they'd like to see grow and so are mostly open to changes. (I'm a fairly decent sized AGS holder and I'm open to changes.) I also haven't seen a lot of AGS/PTS holders saying 'No don't alter my vesting balance!'

I'm also not a fan of delegate dilution for non core developers because apathetic shareholders aren't able to effectively manage 101 decentralised businesses nor have they added much value. Even rgcrypto has basically stated the only initiative remotely worthy pursuing via dilution in terms of bringing in new users and adding value  at this stage is minebitshares.  I much prefer the new referral programme that's being put in place, though I realise that view is unpopular with some.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

chryspano

  • Guest
Quote from: luckybit
So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?

This probably will be less damaging than trying to impose changes on the vesting of the merger.

Lets assume I had 500k bts in my wallet and also I'm getting another 100k from the merger, If I wanted to sell the "free-extra-bonus" bts of the merger all I had to do would be to pick the right time and sell 100k bts from my current balance, there would be no need to wait for my vested balances on a daily on monthly basis. On top of that I could sell 100k-200k more because I anticipate others will do the same and the price will keep falling, so I can buy back cheaper later.

I doubt that there is any merger seller out there that actually waits to get his vested bts in the wallet before he sells them, probably most selling has already occurred, any changes now would be more damaging than helpfull. 

   

Offline fuzzy

the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.

Stick with what? Developers randomly screwing with supply? The loss of confidence caused by that move is probably irreversible. This proposal doesn't change supply, just tries to dampen the damage.

Just so everyone knows.  I am reiterating this:  Nothing has been changed and they are simply asking these questions to garner an idea what the community thinks about the idea knowing what we know now. 

I think this has actually been a kind of painful, but  necessary exercise. 

One thing I like about BitShares:  we have no concerns with debating ideas. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.

Stick with what? Developers randomly screwing with supply? The loss of confidence caused by that move is probably irreversible. This proposal doesn't change supply, just tries to dampen the damage.

Offline Helikopterben

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

This is rediculous.  Central banks freeze assets.  We do not.  I say release all shares and be done with it.  Maybe the price will suffer... or maybe not, but we could get that level of uncertainty out of the way.

So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?

That is what I am advocating and we don't know for sure how it would affect price. 

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
There are 2 things here. 

The change in initial perception when the money supply started being screwed with.  We already bore the brunt of this.

The second thing is that actual downward pressure made by selling vesting shares from people still wishing to sell.

At best you only effect the downward pressure, but you're going to increase the perception that BTS can not be trusted to stick with things.

Anyway..this is pointless. I just hope this would never gain traction.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up.  You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS.  You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally" 
That is what me and the other guy are asking for. We want it to be conditionally distributed not undone.

Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt.  I don't think I need to explain this.  It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.
Bytemaster himself says that the referral program should be tied to results. This makes it conditional.

So why isn't the merger also conditionally tied to the success of Bitshares?

The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people.  You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.
Does DNS exist? What value? Show me an implementation of it. Show me when the last code update occurred? What is the status of DNS?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive.  DNS was killed.  It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided.  Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated.  Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?
No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?

Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up.  You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS.  You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally" 

Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further.  As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.

I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.

People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?

Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt.  I don't think I need to explain this.  It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.
Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.

Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.

The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.

If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.

And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?

The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people.  You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.


I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.

EXACTLY!

I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.

No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.

So lets make another hair-brained (hare?) change.  Then people will take us seriously. Even in terms of the shares added by dilution, the market price has fell far more. I can come up with educated guesses as to why, but no one can assign true weights to them. I assume that 1/4th of the 1/5th dilution total has been freed.  That is about 5% inflation....  Why do you even think this is a big factor?  People are just desperate and you are arguing for your side, just like when you tried so hard to get us to partner with blackshares.


[/b]


Becoming like the big banks and big governments? Unable to adapt because it might upset someone? So what is the alternative?

The people who are going to sell will sell on the way down. The people who are going to buy will buy in the way up. Haven't you been watching?

But you're a true believer who will not sell even if the market cap went to $1 million.

Unfortunately most people are going to sell before the vesting even completes if that happens so what is the value of it? In the market perception is very important and for a tech firm or for a lifeform adaptation is the key to survival.


Lol you've never even established that the vesting of the merger is that big of a factor. I'd be very surprised if you hold much unvested BTS vs BTS acquired elsewhere.

When people sell on the way down then someone is also buying what is being sold.  Again, just more nonsense.  Do you not understand these sorts of basics and you are giving advice !?!?!?

Yes market perception is important and changing the deal again would likely hurt even more than it helps.  It is just desperation. You make me want to go dig out my AGS wallet and sell the rest of my BTS right now.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive.  DNS was killed.  It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided.  Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated.  Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?
No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?

Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up.  You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS.  You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally" 

Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further.  As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.

I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.

People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?

Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt.  I don't think I need to explain this.  It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.
Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.

Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.

The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.

If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.

And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?

The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people.  You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.


I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.

EXACTLY!

I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.

No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.

So lets make another hair-brained (hare?) change.  Then people will take us seriously. Even in terms of the shares added by dilution, the market price has fell far more. I can come up with educated guesses as to why, but no one can assign true weights to them. I assume that 1/4th of the 1/5th dilution total has been freed.  That is about 5% inflation....  Why do you even think this is a big factor?  People are just desperate and you are arguing for your side, just like when you tried so hard to get us to partner with blackshares.


[/b]


Becoming like the big banks and big governments? Unable to adapt because it might upset someone? So what is the alternative?

The people who are going to sell will sell on the way down. The people who are going to buy will buy in the way up. Haven't you been watching?

But you're a true believer who will not sell even if the market cap went to $1 million.

Unfortunately most people are going to sell before the vesting even completes if that happens so what is the value of it? In the market perception is very important and for a tech firm or for a lifeform adaptation is the key to survival.

As for the Blackshares idea if that would have happened it would have doubled the size of our community. It might have failed and I might be arguing for freezing it now but we'd have a community that is bigger and more users of Bitshares which was the point.

Did the community increase in size from the merger between Bitshares Vote and Bitshares DNS? No. We gained nothing because the same community basically merged with itself. I never supported the merger because I knew we'd have the exact same people in the community before and after the merger and that it's about the community.

The merger was pushed through because the developers threatened to revolt against Bitshares if it didn't. Blackshares had more support than the merger they pushed through and you can see for yourself most of the community supported it in the poll.

See the poll: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4230.0

Did most of us support the merger in a similar poll?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 01:29:18 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

This is rediculous.  Central banks freeze assets.  We do not.  I say release all shares and be done with it.  Maybe the price will suffer... or maybe not, but we could get that level of uncertainty out of the way.

So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?

This is actually more reasonable, although those who do not have vested balances would be hurt.  At least you are not further screwing PTS/AGS holders and it seems more equitable.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive.  DNS was killed.  It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided.  Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated.  Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?
No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?

Ok fair enough I got 2 things somewhat mixed up.  You are not saying undue the merger, just make it so that people who contributed to AGS can no longer have liquid BTS.  You are suggesting only partially undoing the merger... or as you put it "conditionally" 

Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further.  As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.

I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.

People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?

Obviously those who can no longer sell their vested BTS are hurt.  I don't think I need to explain this.  It will be obvious to just about everyone on here. I can't even understand your logic about people who don't want the market cap going up should have their passive income paused.
Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.

Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.

The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.

If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.

And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?

The other side of this is the value of DNS taken away from people.  You can't undo that, but somehow you can take people's BTS so it is fair game? You can't even quantify any of this stuff.


I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.

EXACTLY!

I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.

No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.

So lets make another hair-brained (hare?) change.  Then people will take us seriously. Even in terms of the shares added by dilution, the market price has fell far more. I can come up with educated guesses as to why, but no one can assign true weights to them. I assume that 1/4th of the 1/5th dilution total has been freed.  That is about 5% inflation....  Why do you even think this is a big factor?  People are just desperate and you are arguing for your side, just like when you tried so hard to get us to partner with blackshares.


[/b]
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

This is rediculous.  Central banks freeze assets.  We do not.  I say release all shares and be done with it.  Maybe the price will suffer... or maybe not, but we could get that level of uncertainty out of the way.

So why vest them at all. Why not just release them all right now so it can be sold in one big dump and we can be done with it?

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive.  DNS was killed.  It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided.  Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated.  Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?
No one said to undue the merger. We are talking about pausing it or making it conditional. If the Bitshares market cap never goes back up then screw the merger. Do you care about the merger if the market cap goes down indefinitely?


Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further.  As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.

I think the improvement I suggested would change things for the better and no one would be hurt. Everyone should want the market cap to go up but if some people don't then their passive income should be paused until the market cap reaches the threshold.

People who could care less about Bitshares but who get the passive income could simply immediately sell it. Just like Bitcoin miners. I'm not claiming that is happening but why leave it to chance? Why?
Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.

Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.

The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.

If you sold Bitshares it's different because you purchased it, mined for it or earned it. The merger really has nothing to do with people who want to sell Bitshares. The merger was basically a giveaway.

And if it's a justified giveaway shouldn't it be measured for success? Couldn't we have the expectation that there should be some positive result achieved? If it's not about the market cap rising then what is it about?

I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.

EXACTLY!

I can understand a lot of people are able to get BTS right now because of the merger and they can't wait to sell it or cash out but like you said it's very important that the market cap rise.

No one is going to take Bitshares seriously in terms of speculators if the market cap goes down indefinitely. Human psychology doesn't work that way even if the owners of Bitshares can benefit from it going down indefinitely.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 01:03:31 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

chryspano

  • Guest
Lets also not allow selling of bts unless the price is greater than X or perhaps we can "freeze" 99% of everyone's bts until the price hits THE MOON or even better we can ask the ripple guys how to do it properly.

Your main concern is the short term price? I believe you already know that price is irrelevant at this point, let those that want to sell to do as they wish, cheap bts for the rest of us and for the rest of the world.

The only real issue I see here is the low delegates pay, nothing else.



Offline canucklehead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.



"A bird in the hand," is the expression.

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people. 

Who are those people that are owed vested funds, but don't already own a shitload of BTS and absolutely can't wait a bit until the market recovers? Do they prefer being paid worthless BTS right now or strong BTS in two years?

Tying the rate of vesting to market cap will ensure that inflation is introduced only when the market can handle it. It'll additionally act as a price stabilization mechanism.


Offline Helikopterben

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

This is rediculous.  Central banks freeze assets.  We do not.  I say release all shares and be done with it.  Maybe the price will suffer... or maybe not, but we could get that level of uncertainty out of the way.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
I dont know that freezing vesting is really an option.  It looks like we are just changing things yet again in a way that screws some people.  (Anyone who bought PTS/DNS to get 'extra' BTS over time would potentially get screwed for example).  It may be a case where the original action was a bad idea, but once you started, backtracking would be worse. 

But I dont really know anymore.  It seems to me there were two major periods where BTS declined in BTC terms.  Period one was following the merger/dilutiion.  Period 2 was recently when the market bugs happened and people couldnt cover or match orders.  It seems to me that fixing the market order matching is the key to getting back to the 4000 satoshi level.  Hopefully that will be accomplished by bitassets 3.0 or whatever modifications to that plan are made, and that it will be a superior system.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.

Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.

So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.

The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.

When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?

And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?

I can no longer see the line between sincere suggestions and parodies.

The gist of the idea is that all mergers should be conditional mergers going into the future. The idea is anyone we merge with should have the incentive to raise our market cap and keep it raised during the vesting period. If our market cap suffers then they shouldn't get their distributions at the expense of our market cap but if our market cap doesn't suffer then the merger should unfreeze.

This is possible because Bitshares is digital and doesn't have to go by the rules of analog corporations. It can merge in any way it wants with other communities and there is no reason why it had to be done the way it was done.

The incentives of the merger obviously are wrong if people are getting distribution while the market cap is dropping. As a result they'll want to support the merger even if the market cap is dropping because they are getting Bitshares the whole time. If the market cap passes the threshold we can speed up the release.

The point is I don't see why we had to release it on a timeline. We could release it conditionally and have the rate of release adjust to the fluctuations of the market cap.

So it's not a parody, it's a possible solution. Of course if you think it's not possible you can say why not.
It seems unlikely this would be a net positive.  DNS was killed.  It can't just be unmerged, so all your thinking is extremely one-sided.  Undoing the merger would mean bytemaster would have to somehow make something up to PTS/AGS. If he didn't, then people would be quite irritated.  Their AGS funds went into paying BTS developers and now their BTS is conditional? Huh?

Your thoughts on incentives/distributions is so poorly conceived it isn't worth critiquing further.  As if AGS investors somehow owe more to BTS. Everytime things have been changed nothing has improved. More changes are not likely to help things outside improved bitassets.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.

Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.

So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.

The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.

When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?

And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?

I can no longer see the line between sincere suggestions and parodies.

The gist of the idea is that all mergers should be conditional mergers going into the future. The idea is anyone we merge with should have the incentive to raise our market cap and keep it raised during the vesting period. If our market cap suffers then they shouldn't get their distributions at the expense of our market cap but if our market cap doesn't suffer then the merger should unfreeze.

This is possible because Bitshares is digital and doesn't have to go by the rules of analog corporations. It can merge in any way it wants with other communities and there is no reason why it had to be done the way it was done.

The incentives of the merger obviously are wrong if people are getting distribution while the market cap is dropping. As a result they'll want to support the merger even if the market cap is dropping because they are getting Bitshares the whole time. If the market cap passes the threshold we can speed up the release.

The point is I don't see why we had to release it on a timeline. We could release it conditionally and have the rate of release adjust to the fluctuations of the market cap.

So it's not a parody, it's a possible solution. Of course if you think it's not possible you can say why not.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 06:06:33 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.

Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.

So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.

The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.

When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?

And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?

I can no longer see the line between sincere suggestions and parodies.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.

Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.

So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.

The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.

When I read that I thought the guy must be joking to even propose to change the vesting rule like that...But thinking in it again maybe stop the vesting NOW until we reach again at least $60 mil market cap and stop it again if we fall below $30 mil market cap doesn't look a very bad idea and maybe should be further discussed?

And to add to that maybe we can buy out Music for another $200 - $300 mil BTS (which appears to be a fair market value of Music) with some vesting rules that allow to claim the new created BTS only if the market cap is above $60 mil and stops if it falls below $30 mil?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 05:50:46 pm by mf-tzo »

Offline Buck Fankers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Under New Management
    • View Profile
    • TuckFheman.com
  • BitShares: buckfankers
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

Vesting run!  ;)


Offline Buck Fankers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Under New Management
    • View Profile
    • TuckFheman.com
  • BitShares: buckfankers
Real problem is BM's BITASSET 3.0. that shows him know nothing about economic.
Of cause u also know nothing about it. Now u want to blame the BTS price to dilution.

Why do you feel this way? Can you go into detail why bitasset 3.0 is a problem or not economically sound?

Never mind, I found your answer.

Quote
Have been previously posted messages explain why the current system does not work properly
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html
And brother of 3.0 eggs Why not work
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15940.0.html

and bytemasters reply.

We have already identified this problem and also the solution:

1) No interest on BitUSD
2) No expiration on Shorts unless USD request force settlement at a discount (profit to the short)
3) Bond market which locks up BitUSD like a CD and pays interest.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 05:47:17 pm by Buck Fankers »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

I vote we freeze vesting until it surpasses the minimum market cap. This could even be done with a price feed of the market cap so that it's taken out of developers hands and left up to the market itself.

Call it conditional merger and use the price feed as the oracle. This way the rate of distribution of shares is not predetermined but determined by actual market conditions. The process should freeze whenever the market cap falls below the threshold.

So what was the market cap when the merger first happened? It was a bit higher? So freeze until it gets back to that point and start it again. This way you're not using any arbitrary magic numbers like 24 months but instead a data feed which is a variable number that everyone who is part of the merger would have the incentive to see rise.

The market cap is the one number we all want to see rise.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 05:06:18 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

Dilution from merger: 500M  (Not all yet vested).
Dilution so far from delegates: under 10 million. 

When did the vesting start, when will it end? I forgot.

Thanks Ander.

I don't think it was the perception of dilution though such as the fact that noone felt they had a choice and the "inflation" was coupled in with the merger package. 

It's ok though...as long as we learn lessons from our mistakes!
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 02:00:09 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Dilution from merger: 500M  (Not all yet vested).
Dilution so far from delegates: under 10 million. 

When did the vesting start, when will it end? I forgot.

Offline vlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vlight
Low price is mostly because of BTC bear market.

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Nothing is on the table at all. Mostly all this is a thought experiment, but I think people should voice their opinions on such ideas regardless because it only takes silence for those in charge of the blockchain to think this might be a valid idea. So I'm saying if we are going to make drastic changes, they should be centered around the real mistakes made.  The merger is the elephant in the room...and if we are going to "solve" the problems of politics in delegates, I think we should instead focus on the real problems. 

The merger did not have consent of the bitshares population before going through. Now knowing what know, I can see that it was the biggest mistake made up to this point.  It is a hugely drastic change...and for the record I do NOT THINK we should change it now.  I think we should work to not change anything but the technical improvements bytemaster has talked about.  Big changes cause panic.  There is no way around it.  So with that said, we should stick to what is working.  Mark my words, the "inflation" model (that is barely inflationary at all) is already building bridges and roads (very cheaply I might add)...in time we will have infrastructure. 

Nothing I say is meant to be taken personally...btw. I am just saying what I think and hoping people realize that delegates are such a small piece of the puzzle in terms of everything. 

What brought me to DPOS was it's ability to hire real people as opposed to thinking some algorithm can fix everything.  We are doing a thought experiment right now on being more like bitcoin...and I don't know if people have been paying attention, but Bitcoin has a lot of problems precisely because they can't adapt in the way a paid delegate system enables...instead, they have a "foundation" (that most bitcoins hate) and isn't NEARLY AS absolutely brilliant as what BM gave us with the paid delegate system.

Oddly enough I was kind of for this idea...until I really started thinking about it.

If nothing can be gained from the merger then the risk to return ratio should indicate it. If nothing is being gained then the merger can be halted.

It's an engineering decision but in real world companies mergers can be halted. On the other hand if we gain nothing from the merger then it looks more like a hostile takeover attempt.

I understand the long term strategic intentions but the reality is different. The merger seemed to promise the world and deliver vapor.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

Nothing is on the table at all. Mostly all this is a thought experiment, but I think people should voice their opinions on such ideas regardless because it only takes silence for those in charge of the blockchain to think this might be a valid idea. So I'm saying if we are going to make drastic changes, they should be centered around the real mistakes made.  The merger is the elephant in the room...and if we are going to "solve" the problems of politics in delegates, I think we should instead focus on the real problems. 

The merger did not have consent of the bitshares population before going through. Now knowing what know, I can see that it was the biggest mistake made up to this point.  It is a hugely drastic change...and for the record I do NOT THINK we should change it now.  I think we should work to not change anything but the technical improvements bytemaster has talked about.  Big changes cause panic.  There is no way around it.  So with that said, we should stick to what is working.  Mark my words, the "inflation" model (that is barely inflationary at all) is already building bridges and roads (very cheaply I might add)...in time we will have infrastructure. 

Nothing I say is meant to be taken personally...btw. I am just saying what I think and hoping people realize that delegates are such a small piece of the puzzle in terms of everything. 

What brought me to DPOS was it's ability to hire real people as opposed to thinking some algorithm can fix everything.  We are doing a thought experiment right now on being more like bitcoin...and I don't know if people have been paying attention, but Bitcoin has a lot of problems precisely because they can't adapt in the way a paid delegate system enables...instead, they have a "foundation" (that most bitcoins hate) and isn't NEARLY AS absolutely brilliant as what BM gave us with the paid delegate system.

Oddly enough I was kind of for this idea...until I really started thinking about it.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 11:44:02 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
If we are going to drastically change something...maybe the reversal of the merger should be the number one change on the chopping block.  As far as I can tell we gained nothing and lost a lot from it. 

Did we gain nothing from Vote and the secrete sauce? /sarcasm

I didnt realise such radical thinking was on the table. Sounds great if its possible, but arent the new funds already mixed together?

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Dilution from merger: 500M.  (Not all yet vested).

Dilution so far from delegates: under 10 million.  Delegate dilution is a non factor.  Perception of dilution probably a signficant factor.  Merger dilution probably a significant factor.  Bugs in the market engine that caused recent problems also probably a factor, we dropped a ton in satoshi terms since that bug.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline lovejoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • Cryptofresh
  • BitShares: lovejoy
I have seen this dilution being a huge issue for a long time...but I've also seen numbers somewhere on the forums showing exactly how little dilution currently exists...though I'm not at acomputer and am finding it difficult to locate the post.

Can anyone post the link or the numbers we are currently looking at both with and without the merger created funds?

Here's everything you ever wanted to know about BTS dilution courtesy of Ander, Riverhead, and others... :)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,11213.0.html
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 07:00:30 am by bitscape »

Offline svk

Is this increase including or excluding the new shares created in the merger?
Excluding, because the block chain counts the vested shares as already created.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline fuzzy

Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

Well one thing is for certain: we need to focus on the REAL problems instead of just calling stuff out that may or may not be an issue. Otherwise this is just an exercise in futility and a waste of time.
Real problem is BM's BITASSET 3.0. that shows him know nothing about economic.
Of cause u also know nothing about it. Now u want to blame the BTS price to dilution.

I think you may be misreading me?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline fuzzy

The merger creates 20,83M bts per month(500M/24months), its 1% inflation per month. Although current supply says that we have 2,5B bts this number will be actually achieved at the end of the 24 month period of the merger, we still have 1,5 year or something like that.

Delegates inflation so far minus fees is a total of 9,8M bts (EDIT: Total amount, not monthly)

I'm not saying that the price decline is caused by the merger or the delegates, all crypto is down at this time, we must be careful and not try to fix something that isn't broken.

Dilution would have been fine but I think the merger wasn't worth the value proposition. I don't know why the merger had to happen. Dilution we could protect ourselves by buying BitUSD and many people did buy BitUSD.

If we are going to drastically change something...maybe the reversal of the merger should be the number one change on the chopping block.  As far as I can tell we gained nothing and lost a lot from it. 

With all that extra supply we could then fund the unproven affiliate program and delegate pay.  We could probably even pay interest in addition...

We already lost toast, so the value proposition for DNS is now pretty much out the window...these are things that are facts and can be looked at. 
Adam is working on 3 projects...which I don't think is much of a change from what he would have been doing without the merger.

The consensus is very very clear on this point imho...
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 02:35:57 am by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline lastagile

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

Well one thing is for certain: we need to focus on the REAL problems instead of just calling stuff out that may or may not be an issue. Otherwise this is just an exercise in futility and a waste of time.
Real problem is BM's BITASSET 3.0. that shows him know nothing about economic.
Of cause u also know nothing about it. Now u want to blame the BTS price to dilution.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
The merger creates 20,83M bts per month(500M/24months), its 1% inflation per month. Although current supply says that we have 2,5B bts this number will be actually achieved at the end of the 24 month period of the merger, we still have 1,5 year or something like that.

Delegates inflation so far minus fees is a total of 9,8M bts (EDIT: Total amount, not monthly)

I'm not saying that the price decline is caused by the merger or the delegates, all crypto is down at this time, we must be careful and not try to fix something that isn't broken.

Dilution would have been fine but I think the merger wasn't worth the value proposition. I don't know why the merger had to happen. Dilution we could protect ourselves by buying BitUSD and many people did buy BitUSD.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Last I heard it's similar to Bitcoin levels. But I am not able to give the precise numbers.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fuzzy

Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

Well one thing is for certain: we need to focus on the REAL problems instead of just calling stuff out that may or may not be an issue. Otherwise this is just an exercise in futility and a waste of time. 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

chryspano

  • Guest
The merger creates 20,83M bts per month(500M/24months), its 1% inflation per month. Although current supply says that we have 2,5B bts this number will be actually achieved at the end of the 24 month period of the merger, we still have 1,5 year or something like that.

Delegates inflation so far minus fees is a total of 9,8M bts (EDIT: Total amount, not monthly)

I'm not saying that the price decline is caused by the merger or the delegates, all crypto is down at this time, we must be careful and not try to fix something that isn't broken.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 02:04:38 am by chryspano »

Offline lastagile

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

Offline fuzzy

Is this increase including or excluding the new shares created in the merger?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline zhangweis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
Weibo:http://weibo.com/zhangweis

Offline fuzzy

I have seen this dilution being a huge issue for a long time...but I've also seen numbers somewhere on the forums showing exactly how little dilution currently exists...though I'm not at acomputer and am finding it difficult to locate the post.

Can anyone post the link or the numbers we are currently looking at both with and without the merger created funds?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D