Precise numbers on dilution?

[gamey]

Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT! 

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.

[mf-tzo]

Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT! 

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?

[Buck Fankers]

Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

Vesting run! 

[Buck Fankers]

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.

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.

[luckybit]

Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

BRILLIANT! 

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.

[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!

[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.

[vlight]

Low price is mostly because of BTC bear market.

[triox]

Freeze all vesting. Resume in 24 months conditional on market cap and at much slower pace.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.