Against FBA

[xeroc]

What is non aggressive about create (should I say sell?) a token that's value depends on a permanent debt of a non liable entity?

Not sure what you are referring to, but don't other crypto tokens classify for this as well?

[theredpill]

What is non aggressive about create (should I say sell?) a token that's value depends on a permanent debt of a non liable entity?

[xeroc]

I mean to be able to valuate an FBA, as the revenue stream are divided with BTS
an investor need to do a lot of math and guess to know wherever worth more buy
BTS or the FBA itself. They would need to guess the TX rate of BTS as a hole as
well as the expected TX rate of the feature. I don't think worth the effort, I
think most investors would prefer just buy BTS instead without all this BS.

.. and the great thing is: It's your CHOICE and you don't have to invest as you
would if you paid the feature for a worker proposal.
Thing is .. worker proposals and FBAs effect EVERY SINGLE shareholder while FBAs
only affect those that are willing to take the risk.

A lot of things can be changed on the stealth proposal like vesting period, a
clear BTS denomination, etc. Before trying to subjugate your own worker design
like this.

So you would rather force all other shareholders to do the numbers on ALL worker
proposal than offer them a way to opt-in?

[xeroc]

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

Now you proved that knows nothing about investing.

So you ran numbers on investing on every single listed company in London, Tokyo, NYC, Frankfurt, Paris, ... ? If so, I DEFINITELY am not into investing.

Thing is .. a feature that is funded with an FBA is a feature that shareholders don't PAY for  ... in contrast to a worker proposal

On the things I'm thinking in to buy YES, I have to do all math and valuations and guesses...

You are assuming that they don't want the feature because one worker do not get approved by the first try.

I see what happend. I wanted to say

    Why would you need to calculate on anyall feature individually? If you care and are
    interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

[theredpill]

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

I mean to be able to valuate an FBA, as the revenue stream are divided with BTS an investor need to do a lot of math and guess to know wherever worth more buy BTS or the FBA itself. They would need to guess the TX rate of BTS as a hole as well as the expected TX rate of the feature. I don't think worth the effort, I think most investors would prefer just buy BTS instead without all this BS.

A lot of things can be changed on the stealth proposal like vesting period, a clear BTS denomination, etc. Before trying to subjugate your own worker design like this.

[theredpill]

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

Now you proved that knows nothing about investing.

So you ran numbers on investing on every single listed company in London, Tokyo, NYC, Frankfurt, Paris, ... ? If so, I DEFINITELY am not into investing.

Thing is .. a feature that is funded with an FBA is a feature that shareholders don't PAY for  ... in contrast to a worker proposal

On the things I'm thinking in to buy YES, I have to do all math and valuations and guesses...

You are assuming that they don't want the feature because one worker do not get approved by the first try.

[xeroc]

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

Now you proved that knows nothing about investing.

So you ran numbers on investing on every single listed company in London, Tokyo, NYC, Frankfurt, Paris, ... ? If so, I DEFINITELY am not into investing.

Thing is .. a feature that is funded with an FBA is a feature that shareholders don't PAY for  ... in contrast to a worker proposal

[xeroc]

Why do we want a fraction when we can have a hole?

Sure we can. But would YOU vote for a feature that costs $45k as a worker
(STEALTH proposal)? My guess is that shareholders simply won't vote for it and
if BM voted for it people would complain as well. Would you also vote for a
feature that someone ELSE promises to code with the risk that he does NOT
deliver? The both of us would probably trust CNX to deliver once paid, but would
you also deliver XYZ?

Furthermore, assuming there was a feature that non of us wanted but still got
approved by other shareholders, why would I want to pay for it through dilution?

2. Committee member cannot decide this. It is a CLIENT-SIDE feature. We might
   see WALLETS that use the privacy mode by default, but NO-ONE will force you
   to do so, EVER. Recall that BitShares is about FREEDOM .. also FREEDOM of
   CHOICE

3. The feature is owned by everyone and (unless shareholders decide otherwise)
   will require an open source licencing. What WILL be owned by a subset of
   people that is distinct from BTS shareholders is a portion of the revenue
   stream from that feature (just a portion, not all of it, at least for those
   FBA proposals I know of). Not sure what you mean by "systemic risk".

So you are saying that we should disrespect the promise made to the FBA holder?

Not sure where I stated that

Tragedy of the commons is not a big advantage. As we learn from BTS 1.0 the
average investor do not even care enough to vote on things. What to say to learn
and calculate every feature individually. 

Why would you need to calculate on any feature individually? If you care and are
interested then you do your numbers, if you are not, you don't.

[theredpill]

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Or the voters could haven't agreed with the conditions of the worker. I for instance do not like seeing things denominated in USD.

I mean you cannot assume that is because they do not want the feature.

[theredpill]

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Or the voters could haven't agreed with the conditions of the worker. I for instance do not like seeing things denominated in USD.

[theredpill]

1. Assuming that by "Future Fees" you mean "fees generated by a particular
   feature of which parts are given to holders of an FBA", then yes, future fees
   cannot be estimated. Actually, nothing in the future can be estimated
   considering the fact that the fees can be changed by the committee account and
   the maintenance account (of a feature/FBA).
   What I DO know is that a fraction of those fees generated by the feature ARE
   paid to the BitShares network/shareholders.

Why do we want a fraction when we can have a hole?

2. Committee member cannot decide this. It is a CLIENT-SIDE feature. We might
   see WALLETS that use the privacy mode by default, but NO-ONE will force you
   to do so, EVER. Recall that BitShares is about FREEDOM .. also FREEDOM of
   CHOICE

3. The feature is owned by everyone and (unless shareholders decide otherwise)
   will require an open source licencing. What WILL be owned by a subset of
   people that is distinct from BTS shareholders is a portion of the revenue
   stream from that feature (just a portion, not all of it, at least for those
   FBA proposals I know of). Not sure what you mean by "systemic risk".

So you are saying that we should disrespect the promise made to the FBA holder?

4. First, there is no DEMOCRATIC process in BitShares. We do per-stake voting,
   not per shareholder/individual. Secondly, since BitShares holders are
   distributed across the globe, I don't think you can simply say: "all
   shareholders are stupid and can't estimate risk against benefit so they will
   vote for FBAs because .. you know .. future fees". We don't know how big
   those future revenue streams will be either, but with FBAs you can a) take
   part in price discovery and b) get your stake in this future fee IF YOU LIKE!

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants.
And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all
worker costs on advance.

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? Can you see how FBAs can fix this
for BitShares?

Personally, I see FBAs as an AWESOME way to attract developers with great ideas.

Tragedy of the commons is not a big advantage. As we learn from BTS 1.0 the average investor do not even care enough to vote on things. What to say to learn and calculate every feature individually. 

[/quote]

[xeroc]

What are the differences between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could
decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more
for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth FBA
 would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or
group owning some network features.

4 - Future fees are a lot easier to pass through the democratic process.

Can anyone on the driver seat please help out here, @Stan @xeroc @bytemaster? Maybe there something I'm not seeing.

1. Assuming that by "Future Fees" you mean "fees generated by a particular
   feature of which parts are given to holders of an FBA", then yes, future fees
   cannot be estimated. Actually, nothing in the future can be estimated
   considering the fact that the fees can be changed by the committee account and
   the maintenance account (of a feature/FBA).
   What I DO know is that a fraction of those fees generated by the feature ARE
   paid to the BitShares network/shareholders.

2. Committee member cannot decide this. It is a CLIENT-SIDE feature. We might
   see WALLETS that use the privacy mode by default, but NO-ONE will force you
   to do so, EVER. Recall that BitShares is about FREEDOM .. also FREEDOM of
   CHOICE

3. The feature is owned by everyone and (unless shareholders decide otherwise)
   will require an open source licencing. What WILL be owned by a subset of
   people that is distinct from BTS shareholders is a portion of the revenue
   stream from that feature (just a portion, not all of it, at least for those
   FBA proposals I know of). Not sure what you mean by "systemic risk".

4. First, there is no DEMOCRATIC process in BitShares. We do per-stake voting,
   not per shareholder/individual. Secondly, since BitShares holders are
   distributed across the globe, I don't think you can simply say: "all
   shareholders are stupid and can't estimate risk against benefit so they will
   vote for FBAs because .. you know .. future fees". We don't know how big
   those future revenue streams will be either, but with FBAs you can a) take
   part in price discovery and b) get your stake in this future fee IF YOU LIKE!

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants.
And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all
worker costs on advance.

I don't think that the interests of all shareholders are aligned with the
interest of people that want to propose, fund and use a particular feature and
we saw that very non-alignment when it comes to the stealth proposal. We will
probably see many more features that some shareholders either don't wont or
don't care about. Why would those that fund the proposal pay for its development
then?

Have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? Can you see how FBAs can fix this
for BitShares?

Personally, I see FBAs as an AWESOME way to attract developers with great ideas.

[theredpill]

One clear example of a good use case for an FBA would be a prediction market.

Augur raised $5.3 million to fund building and marketing their prediction market. https://sale.augur.net/
Augur have a specialist prediction market focused team of talent and entrepreneurs. http://www.augur.net/#team
Running a successful prediction market will take a lot of ongoing focus from that team.


Without FBA's

- BTS would not be able to get a miniscule fraction of that amount through dilution without crashing BTS so would struggle to compete with competitors without being able to raise funding for the PM specifically and directly.
- A prediction market would need to incentivise entrepeneurs and specialist developers, to develop market and manage the PM.  They can only be attracted and incentivised with a share of that specific business and it's revenue.

If the development is small and doesn't require a lot of ongoing management then as BTS has dilution (I'm not a fan) it should be considered but for larger projects FBA's are superior.

Can you define "larger" projects in this context?
The E-sports venture is right in line for a prediction market and I've had atleast 5 people give me the augur comparison. Even Bytemaster for that matter, but there's no way we can legitimately raise say 500k with a UIA due to the legalities involved. Maybe we could do a FBA . Maybe, but that's a slight possibility.

I would guess some of the questions about whether something should be a UIA/FBA/Funded via dilution in general are...

Would this business model/product benefit from being blockchain based?
If so then an FBA/dilution funding could be a good idea.

Is it just something that BTS can code and it will be successful without any added input and expertise?
If so then BTS holders may be better off funding themselves via dilution.

If the answer to the above is yes, would it cost more than $50 000?
At the current CAP, that much dilution may considerably lower the value of BTS, so it might be better suited to an FBA.

If it costs less than that but shareholders don't want to fund it then it might be best to do an FBA. 

How much exclusivity are you expecting BTS holders to give you and for how long?

For example if STEALTH wanted to be the only anonymous transaction offering on BTS for the forseeable future then that could limit BTS.
The cost is also less than $50 000 and once it's coded it may need very little management. So STEALTH could be something shareholders could consider funding themselves.

You are still starting from the premise that FBA are going to attract other people / money so please do this: try to get someone new to BTS to invest on an FBA. First you will need to explain all the BTS concept, why is great and why is gonna work, then explain your FBA and why is great and why is gonna work. By the time you end the person maybe wanna invest on BTS instead lol.

I am that example, I wouldn't invest in BTS currently but I would consider investing in specific FBA's based on their risk/return.

So a good FBA would attract my money.

(I do actually have a reasonable amount of BTS from my AGS merger allocation much of which I haven't claimed but I'm not currently invested in BTS otherwise.)

Ironically if BTS had a lot of FBA's in development that may make me want to invest in BTS more, because BTS would be having loads of great features rapidly added to it's blockchain & without dilution crushing the price.

That's why you are biased on this and you just prove my point because you are a BTS holder / believer. The money that goes to FBA are either diverging from BTS or from people that don't know what they doing.

[theredpill]

One clear example of a good use case for an FBA would be a prediction market.

Augur raised $5.3 million to fund building and marketing their prediction market. https://sale.augur.net/
Augur have a specialist prediction market focused team of talent and entrepreneurs. http://www.augur.net/#team
Running a successful prediction market will take a lot of ongoing focus from that team.


Without FBA's

- BTS would not be able to get a miniscule fraction of that amount through dilution without crashing BTS so would struggle to compete with competitors without being able to raise funding for the PM specifically and directly.
- A prediction market would need to incentivise entrepeneurs and specialist developers, to develop market and manage the PM.  They can only be attracted and incentivised with a share of that specific business and it's revenue.

If the development is small and doesn't require a lot of ongoing management then as BTS has dilution (I'm not a fan) it should be considered but for larger projects FBA's are superior.

Can you define "larger" projects in this context?
The E-sports venture is right in line for a prediction market and I've had atleast 5 people give me the augur comparison. Even Bytemaster for that matter, but there's no way we can legitimately raise say 500k with a UIA due to the legalities involved. Maybe we could do a FBA . Maybe, but that's a slight possibility.

I would guess some of the questions about whether something should be a UIA/FBA/Funded via dilution in general are...

Would this business model/product benefit from being blockchain based?
If so then an FBA/dilution funding could be a good idea.

Is it just something that BTS can code and it will be successful without any added input and expertise?
If so then BTS holders may be better off funding themselves via dilution.

If the answer to the above is yes, would it cost more than $50 000?
At the current CAP, that much dilution may considerably lower the value of BTS, so it might be better suited to an FBA.

If it costs less than that but shareholders don't want to fund it then it might be best to do an FBA. 

How much exclusivity are you expecting BTS holders to give you and for how long?

For example if STEALTH wanted to be the only anonymous transaction offering on BTS for the forseeable future then that could limit BTS.
The cost is also less than $50 000 and once it's coded it may need very little management. So STEALTH could be something shareholders could consider funding themselves.

No this cannot be considered at all, the network cannot be on debt with any person or token. I even think we should have same form of preventing this from happening.

[theredpill]

If you don't like FBA, then support a committee that votes against FBA.

If you support FBA then vote for a committee member who likes FBA.

BTS allows freedom of choice.

so simple

so we shouldn't discuss it because we can vote?

I found the perfect place for you to work, the DNC:

https://www.democrats.org/about/work-with-us

Xypher, regarding points 4 and 5, BTS 2.0 has been out for a grand total of 3-4(?) months now? We haven't had time to see how worker proposals can pan out in the future, we haven't failed to attract talent and infuse capitol, we haven't even had time to try yet. This is like going fishing for ten minutes and being like, "oh shit, well i guess the fish aren't biting. time for plan B, if you go to the supermarket and buy me a fish I'll give you a cut of all future fish I catch." All the time and effort put into BTS1.0 doesn't count now. Graphene is completely new. We rebooted.

I can't agree more, I think we are going in the right way, let's see what happens now :-). I hope they see this is a big mistake. They have done a wonderful work and I would vote for a very fair compensation as they deserve.