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.

[theredpill]

Thank you @Xypher and @merockstar, I'm thinking now should I add "do not be expose to BTS price variation" to that list.

[theredpill]

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.

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.

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

What else? I am missing something?

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

[Xypher]

BTS allows freedom of choice.

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

Yes, you should, why else would I have bumped this thread?  Just to hear you bitch about poor documentation?

If we don't at least talk more about what is already happening today, then how can we expect to ever hope to talk about what is about to happen in the future:

the lion is about to eat the gazelle
the fittest is about to survive while the weakest dies
capitalism uses capital to grow capital
the force of gravity continues acting upon you
others whom you may not agree with will continue developing bitcoin and Bitshares (AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING TO STOP THEM WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS)

All I'm saying is that if you ever hope to predict the future, then you might want to accept what is happening in the present, and then you might understand the math that predicted it (the present) so that you can use that same math to get rich simply because you predicted the future.  If at anytime in the past you predicted that crypto could be useful to humans, then congratulations, you correctly predicted the future.  Exactly how much money you choose to accept due to your correct prediction depends only upon which current math problems you are choosing to solve CURRENTLY.

BitShares is now being developed weather or not the existing shareholders are paying for it directly.  Your only recourse is to become politically active, and no political process is accurately defined, but it could be if you choose to do something about it besides bitch.  Or you could continue to bitch until someone else takes care of it much later than it would have occurred if you had helped do it yourself today instead of bitching.

But the freedom of choice is yours completely:

Plan A:

Bitch about lack of political documentation for a long time until someone else documents it for your teary ass

Plan B:

Draft a document for peer review which will get the job done sooner than plan A

Which plan is this thread about?

I was hoping for Plan B which was why I first came back from the dead and bumped your thread, but, you know what?  Fuck it, maybe I'll try back in another 6 months, because you obviously have a Plan A fetish and have not learned anything in the past 6 months because we are complaining about the exact (EXACT? yeah, exact like deja vu all over again, the exact) same shit today as we were back then:

Why has the share price not moved since I left here in August?

Why are you guys still talking about the same shit you were talking about nearly a half a year ago?

Do you see a bitch connection yet, or will it take another Bitcoin Jesus 2.O data point 6 months from now to show you what happens to communities that cry about their present situation vs communities that act to change their present situation.

I didn't listen to the hangout, so I'm missing the background on this. But what is the main purpose of BMs proposal?

Either way, the cost benefit analysis is the same.

If somebody wants to burn enough of their personal BTS to fund a project that we all want to happen eventually, and the market cap gets a big boost, then this works even better than advertised! 

To keep things from getting crazy, there should also be  limiter on how much can be burned per vote. I would suggest no more than 1% of your total BTS. 

Why? If I want to completely fund a project that Fuzzy (or any one of your fine furry elected delegates that you all know and love and trust) proposed, and want to burn 100% of my BTS to do it, then don't you think that I might want to go out and buy some BTS later so that I can take financial advantage (like you are doing) of what I just paid to create?  Your logic is senseless.  The extreme scenario is actually financially the best (most lucrative) scenario for you.  The worst case, is nobody plays this game (0%) and nobody wins.  Everybody benefits.  Everybody wins when anybody plays.

Only do this if you want to cap your benefits.  But then so why would you even do this at all to any degree then?  I think that you all are so used to getting scammed that you can't see an obvious gold nugget in front of your face.  Because let's face it kids, this is the California gold rush all over again.  This is the crypto revolution and it is like the industrial revolution, but this time, we are the mother fucking steam engine about to lay claim to the easiest and most "profitable dynamic and interactive user controlled crypto community" cash geysers :

Step aside nobody (our current competition in this space), we are claiming this cash geyser first.  Anybody here who does not want to claim this giant fucking paperweight is either a pussy or competitor.





This shit that BM is proposing is just like laying claim to the biggest fucking nuggets that the crypto world has ever seen.  Free fucking money here.  He said that he is concentrating on building the most profitable crypto community rule set that the world will ever need to know, and who here thinks that BM has no clue? Go ahead speak up and say that BM wouldn't know an economics problem if John Maynard himself was smacking him upside the head.  Where would this community be without B to the mother fucking M?  He's the main reason why you even give a shit about my vomit.

What.... You don't trust BM?  He's the most god damn open book honest to god goody two shoes I ever blessed.  He is a mirror to good and evil.  You are what you think of him to be.  He is a soul gauge.  A tool for you to measure exactly how much of a tool you are.  If you think that he is fucking you, then you, my friend, are the fucker.

Well, it has been nearly half a year since you began crying about what is happening around you (FBA) instead of embracing that which makes you stronger than those who want you to continue to deny the existence of gravity so that they can be the first to discover the law of gravity which you refuse to monetize:

Factom, IOTA, and Ethereum

Go ahead, and bitch about FBA for another 6 months and see where your competitors are then...

If you're lucky, I'll drop by just to plot the next data point number 3 and plot you an accurate trajectory that will mathematically show you the future of those who bitch rather than act

Am in to assist and support with plan B.

r

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

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.

[Xypher]

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

Quoting from earlier.

2. We do have something that's almost close to a decentralized form of governance with the committee system in place, but there's literally no documentation whatsoever nor a means for a person that's not a dev to really partake in it. In addition, its not sensitive to the needs of a global user base. For instance, there's no way we can have a committee with representations from key markets like China or a major demographic like gamers.



-
-Xypher

[Xypher]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea?

Nope. I feel outnumbered here too.

What are the difference 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 BTA would say NO!.

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

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 workers cost on advance.

Very elegantly said. I don't see the point of even having a blockchain if we're just going to sell out every incoming feature to those willing to put cash on the table. That's how the centralized financial system currently works and I'm here because I favor a paradigm change.

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I'm not a communist and I find the FBA proposition offensive.

We've seen how capitalism works with regulations, checks and balances, and we're seeing how it works when you let investors and businesses control everything. I favor the former, but believe this is a step towards the later.

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Really important point here.
Going to speak on a personal basis - and am sorry if the following post offends anyone. I don't intend to piss people off, just want to share my honest opinion.


1. We have the groundwork for an amazing crypto here. A vibrant community, decentralized decision making via committees (although voting is not clear to me) and most importantly, insanely quick transactions that can scale to the needs of a global user base.

2. We do have something that's almost close to a decentralized form of governance with the committee system in place, but there's literally no documentation whatsoever nor a means for a person that's not a dev to really partake in it. In addition, its not sensitive to the needs of a global user base. For instance, there's no way we can have a committee with representations from key markets like China or a major demographic like gamers.

3. The FBA system is incredible - from the pov of someone that's about to raise funds. Yes, I can "theoretically" pledge my "theoretical" tx fees from the future to users here and "theoretically" raise funds. I use theoretically, because hey.. we haven't had a successful fund raise yet. In terms of legality, i don't know how different this is from a UIA, where I can simply say "I'll pledge my ref to the backers of the project" , or we can go the route of traditional VC's and say, I pledge x percent to the backers . Again, the legality of this is largely in murky waters because its not clear yet. From the eyes of an average consumer, this is a very innovative way to raise funds, but from what I know of banking..organizations repeatedly find ways to raise funds via multiple complicated systems when there's no actual economic growth going on. Remember subprime mortgage and the tech stock crash of 2000's? This is what it truly reminds me of.

4. Worker proposals are cool. Agreed. But beyond CNX and a few others that have been involved with the community for years we have neither attracted talent nor had individuals putting forward proposals. From my experience, I find worker proposals a zero sum game because it takes time to raise funds that way and in most cases given the declining markets of BTS (currently) - associated risks are way too high when we take exchange rates into consideration.

5. It is sad that CNX would focus on what an individual would offer them to build instead of having the collective requirements of us as a community needs. I am by no means blaming CNX here, but pointing the fact that our ecosystem may not be as vibrant as it should be. We have collectively failed to attract talent, infuse capital and build an ecosystem where we don't have to depend solely on CNX to build the things we need.  The reason for this being
(i) complexity of understanding the system
(ii) lack of documentation
(iii) on-going politics and underlying personal motivations and agendas

6. If we are to see a change in the way things are, we'll need
(i) - effective forms of governance and decision making.
CNX has laid the groundwork with the committee system but I am yet to see how its effective

(ii) Effective means of fund raising and backing projects
-How come only a handful of projects have fund raised with UIA's ? Nxt's ecosystem is a very good example of this.
SecureAE is an extremely efficient system in handling such user cases (although I've experienced bugs)

(iii) Open towards International Communities
Solely releasing PR in 15 languages won't do the job. We'll need to understand user cases and local markets efficiently to penetrate markets. Resource persons from each demographic need to be bought on board, paid if need be - and learned from to create better products.

(iv) Empower entrepreneurs
As an entrepreneur, I can attest the fact that yes, this ecosystem is very confusing. We need to put individuals that are reliable, trustworthy and capable to help onboard businesses and nurture businesses within the ecosystem. Why don't we have a community backed accelerator of sorts. Pooled funds to invest into x number of startups for y amount of equity. Performance tracked every quarter. This will be largely capitalistic in nature, but its something we should look into. I am happy to dedicate time into something of this nature if we are up for it.

FBA isn't about capitalism vs socialism. Its about our combined failure to create redundant systems that are non reliant solely on CNX to define the future of what a decentralized currency that works almost at the speeds of NASDAQ can be.

My .32 bts, because as mentioned earlier... I can't send you guys 2 and 30 bts would now go to the network.
-Xypher

[yvv]

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I am communist. FBA is not offensive to me. You better not put labels on people, especially if you have no idea what communism is.

[theredpill]

What are the difference 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 BTA would say NO!.

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

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 workers cost on advance.

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

What else? I am missing something?

[theredpill]

The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.

No it is not, maybe on literal sense of the word, but this is type of the wrong use of democracy that permits you to trick the system to vote in something hiding the costs. The stealth proposal for instance, CNX tried to pass this proposal charging something to do the job and fail. Then instead of discuss with the community and understand what was not working, they just made other proposal hiding the same costs or more so the people that do not understand right can vote for a future larger loss in revenue. If you have any doubt about this just read the comments on both proposal and you will find something like this: "just $300 dollars? let's do it".

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

The FBA is born out of a capitalist methodology, and so those who agree in some way with capitalism they will be agreeable with the FBA.

Fact is that not everyone in the world agrees with capitalism and therefore will argue up and down over every point about the FBA because it is another departure from a purely socialized feature of BitShares.

I think what you are seeing in this thread is that clash.

However, if you look at how the FBA has been setup, I believe that there has been a good attempt at taking the best of both worlds of thought to create something new and stronger than one ideal or the other that stand alone. If it really works the way it should or not once implemented is another story.

Good news though, we can always vote to make improvements.

Until then though, discussions like this of throwing the baby with the bathwater don't go in the right direction.

Creating new innovations like FBA are exactly what we should be aspiring to do in BitShares.

I am as capitalist as you are or more, I just think is better for us to have only one token to not incentivise people trying to push one feature over other but the system as a whole.

[CoinHoarder]

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Meh, I won't be telling you that. At least you are respectful while voicing your opposition. The only person I'be told that is tonyk, and if you look through his recent post history he has been very mean and nasty towards everyone for a long time. It wasn't simply the fact that he disagreed.

I know how you feel though. I was very vocal against dilution and the community decided to go against my opinion. I had to come to terms with that... you don't always get what you want. Eventually, I even came around to their way of thinking and now think it is a nice feature. You should stick around because perhaps the same will happen with you once you see a few neat features implemented because of FBA with no added dilution.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea?

Nope. I feel outnumbered here too.

What are the difference 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 BTA would say NO!.

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

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 workers cost on advance.

Very elegantly said. I don't see the point of even having a blockchain if we're just going to sell out every incoming feature to those willing to put cash on the table. That's how the centralized financial system currently works and I'm here because I favor a paradigm change.

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I'm not a communist and I find the FBA proposition offensive.

We've seen how capitalism works with regulations, checks and balances, and we're seeing how it works when you let investors and businesses control everything. I favor the former, but believe this is a step towards the later.

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

[phillyguy]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea? I mean, I very appreciate the BM try to find a funding solution for things but this is so bad for BTS that for the first time ever I have consider moving on of this project, In the past after search all crypto projects at the time I end up here thanks of our community and values, and I would argue that FBAs are against both.

1 - Community or comum unity, our community token is BTS, creating other tokens means divide the community, make us not one set of values and goals anymore, now BTS have someone name in the chain and are in debt with then. If our value is to create a fair system, the FBA makes no sense.

2 - What the problem with dilution? - I mean, even if (is a big IF) that means a little short term drop in the price, if you are like me and really believe in the project, whats the matter? You can even buy some more at discount.

3 - Promises - Each token is like a promise, we cannot go on forever making promises upon promises to people, I understand that CNX have now little stake on the project, but this is not excuse for trying to use the BTS for making profit like that, to be honest I think is even disrespectful to old holders like me that lost more then 80% waiting things get done, now that they are, because of lack of capacity to approve things democratically, try to compromise future revenue streams like that. This smells like FED.

As an old stakeholder that sincere belief on the values of this project I urge the community to vote against this type of thing, BTS 2.0 is here and is great, now is time to democratize things, if we need funds we dilute, straightforward if we make money we burn, as one community, one token, one set of values. If you no matter who want a feature, raise the necessary approval in BTS terms, Will be my pleasure vote for you.

Let's price things in BTS not USD here please.

I would like to candidate myself as a proxy voter too, if you agree, my bts is theredpill.

What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

BitShares 2.0 is a superDAC platform for multiple profitable DACs designed to attract entrepreneurs with a profit motive.  This provides a magnet to bring more resources into the ecosystem.

The first DAC built on that platform was a decentralized exchange providing a set of backbone services and utilities for other businesses to build on.

Now we are into the phase of attracting more businesses - which will pay fees to use the platform's services making that platform more valuable.  The more businesses that "lock up" BitShares in their pipelines the fewer shares in circulation and the more valuable they become.  The more businesses that stimulate transactions the more fees and liquidity the platform earns.

Meanwhile, the STEALTH and Mutual Aid Society (MAS) functions start building up the capabilities we all crave for independence from The World System.

It the ultimate system, BitShares becomes an incorruptible alternative for much of that system.  But to do that, more businesses must be inside than outside the platform.

Ultimately, Fee Backed Assets are much more interesting to investors than User Issued Assets, so there are more reasons to get an account and trade here.

So we wind up with the functional equivalent of many interoperable blockchains.

Profitable, incorruptible, interoperable businesses with low barriers to entry and shared network effect all managed by its owners in a decentralized manner - just as the original vision in Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics.

So, again, What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

An actual user base?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

The FBA is born out of a capitalist methodology, and so those who agree in some way with capitalism they will be agreeable with the FBA.

Fact is that not everyone in the world agrees with capitalism and therefore will argue up and down over every point about the FBA because it is another departure from a purely socialized feature of BitShares.

I think what you are seeing in this thread is that clash.

However, if you look at how the FBA has been setup, I believe that there has been a good attempt at taking the best of both worlds of thought to create something new and stronger than one ideal or the other that stand alone. If it really works the way it should or not once implemented is another story.

Good news though, we can always vote to make improvements.

Until then though, discussions like this of throwing the baby with the bathwater don't go in the right direction.

Creating new innovations like FBA are exactly what we should be aspiring to do in BitShares.

[SpiritofJefferson]

The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.

[theredpill]

I would buy 1 billion BTS for .00001 cent each before selling any BTS if things stay fairly and democratic as have been because I know they rest will catch up when the time came.

[morpheus]

I somewhat agree.  Right now FBA investors are saying no to MAKER (which I think is absolutely necessary).  MAKER and the lending market are essential to attracting liquidity IMO and if FBA investors aren't willing to fund it, then a worker proposal will have to be done, or else the project will be incomplete IMO. 

Some of you are assuming that no new investors will come in to buy bts at cheaper prices if these features are funded through worker proposal.  Many of us would, especially if it looks like the project is moving forward nicely.  Most likely bts investors will divert funds from bts to FBAs anyway, so the end result will be the same.  The only bet is if investors will put more money in than they otherwise would have with alternative avenues of investment.  They probably will and the FBA option is a good one.

[theredpill]

What are the difference 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 BTA would say NO!.

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

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 workers cost on advance.

[Stan]

...

Fairness, I was a stakeholder on a BTS 1.0 that has already stealth, now I need to buy again if I want.

Democracy, Is easy to get people to vote on $300 bills without knowing how much they will pay, but I think this is wrong and frankly stupid. We have made the means to fund things and now we are changing that again because some of us cannot raise votes on features.

Community, We are losing our comum unity token, for BTS means fair system to all, now I don't know for sure, but this FBA for me just means much make money as is possible, I don't think this is gonna work on a open-source project.

On overhaul this concept is just put power on the hands of the people that have commit rights on BTS, this is exact the opposite we need right now, now we need trust, trust that the community have the power, and the things are not gonna change anymore. Business to build around, not within.

Growth = Good change.

If you accept that the best way to grow is to become a platform on which other businesses can build then you get the maximum value for shareholders.  If we wait until shareholders can afford to fund everything, then it will take a long time to achieve a snowballing network effect that assures long term success.

As to BTS 1.0, it had a few features that didn't work as advertised that were deprecated to get BTS 2.0 with a mix of better features.  And all that was done with developer's money, not yours.  So it seems unfair to say its unfair. 

Having made that very good trade, now we want to keep adding and improving features as fast as possible to grow value for everybody.  To do that, we need to incentivize people to spend their own money to make improvements.

So we embrace an open platform model where we get a share of every new business's profits that choose to run on our platform.  How much should we tax somebody else's business?  If we want to confiscate most of their revenues, how many will sign up?

As a business developer, I'm happy to pay 20% of my revenues to rent space in somebody else's shopping mall and leverage their infrastructure services.  But I'm certainly not willing to give them the lion's share.

In the end, everything that once was there is still there.  The community can choose to fund whatever the max dilution rate will buy.

But if we want to grow faster than that and seize network effect before competing platforms do, then we should embrace every new innovation that helps us do that.



xeroc, for what you posted while I was typing this.  Yeah - its good to have more than one source of propulsion!

[theredpill]

No one is loosing anything, there will not be any "additional" dilution and
again BitShares is not about being "fair" in your sense. It is fair in such as
every opinion is hear, weighted by its stake. That's how businesses are run!
Also, BTS is not a community token. It comes with responsibilities (such as
voting) and with profits (from burning and/or by other means)
What does this have to do with an open-source project? Do you think open source
developers only need to breath .. no food?

No, at all, I would vote for a really fair compensation, as you all deserve very much, but as an open-source project, the price of any service should be noted before the fact, you price in BTS terms please, and present for the community, get the political support needed and done, I probably would vote for.

We can do STEALTH, Prediction markets, all at the same time by dilution, and if we vest for say 2 years, even do not feel the effects of it.

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[xeroc]

Fairness, I was a stakeholder on a BTS 1.0 that has already stealth, now I need
to buy again if I want.

Democracy, Is easy to get people to vote on $300 bills without knowing how much
they will pay, but I think this is wrong and frankly stupid. We have made the
means to fund things and now we are changing that again because some of us
cannot raise votes on features.

BitShares is NOT about fairness and NOT about democracy. In a democracy, every
"participant" gets one vote. In BitShares every "participants" gets as much say
as he has face in the game (i.e. stake).

Also, we are NOT CHANGING the means to fund things, the proposal only ADDS
another means of funding. It's like a spaceship that can use sub-light-engines
or use warp drive. In fact, BitShares is way better, because our spaceship can
offer sub-light-engines WHILE using warp drive! (@Stan, works for you? )

Community, We are losing our comum unity token, for BTS means fair system to
all, now I don't know for sure, but this FBA for me just means much make money
as is possible, I don't think this is gonna work on a open-source project.

No one is loosing anything, there will not be any "additional" dilution and
again BitShares is not about being "fair" in your sense. It is fair in such as
every opinion is hear, weighted by its stake. That's how businesses are run!
Also, BTS is not a community token. It comes with responsibilities (such as
voting) and with profits (from burning and/or by other means)
What does this have to do with an open-source project? Do you think open source
developers only need to breath .. no food?

On overhaul this concept is just put power on the hands of the people that have
commit rights on BTS, this is exact the opposite we need right now, now we need
trust, trust that the community have the power, and the things are not gonna
change anymore. Business to build around, not within.

You statement is not fully correct.
Convince the witnesses to compile from another source directory and there you
go. Before FUDing about "trust" in a git repository, try to send a pull request
first and see what will happen!

Also, BitShares has voting .. also for hard forks!

Liberty, now the community cannot change some things if they want.

Sure they can! What does this statement have to do with FBAs?
BitShares is NOT run by CNX or Dan. It is run by the witnesses and committee
members.

This concept completely misaligned the interests and will make a lot of
confusion on future changes, this is make BTS like bitcoin block size
discussions.

lol, what?

[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.

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[theredpill]

Yes we can do a prediction market and it might do very well, but would it be better if we had a few million to develop the best model on the market and a few million more to spend on marketing, probably.

We can fund that by dilution in BTS terms and if the users start to came, maybe that few millions came to BTS itself, everybody win, inclusive those who develop the feature. Interests aligned, get it?

You're suggesting building a range of sub $30 000 blockchain additions that you want our overworked developers and apathetic shareholders to manage and promote. A lot of these are unique businesses that require specialist developers and talent from that industry.

I that all what we have now. But not think USD, think BTS. If we do not split.

Should we dilute ourselves to make a competitor to MUSE? Or will MUSE be a superior product because they've had more money to spend on development and they have large shareholders like Cob with industry relevant experience and contacts?

If sameone take the risk for X BTS the community will vote and see. . :-)

FBA's allow us to attract those specifically talented people to our platform and let them keep a lot of the profits, otherwise they will go crowdfund and build a DAPP on Ethereum and we will have to compete with tiny dilution, no specific talent from that business and our lazy shareholders will then have to try manage it better than them on top of everything else they're already responsible for.

I'm not so sure, I'm for instance am here as I said because of the values, I would be more then happy to provide some service to the network for BTS, if I think my service is gonna provide lot's of benefits and the BTS I won worth lots more. (Interests aligned again)

I also quite like FBA's because it lets you choose which part of the business you want to invest in the most.
For example 'The Force Awakens' is a huge box office hit, so you might wish to invest in that but then you have to buy Disney shares but Disney may be down on the year because they overpaid for sports rights. A 'Force Awakens' FBA would have let you invest in and get more exposure to the product you believed in the most. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-20/star-wars-smashes-global-opening-weekend-record-over-half-billion-ticket-sales-will-

I agree with this, but is so much to loose and so little tradeoff, do you really thing worth losing alignment of interest between us and our providers for this?

[theredpill]

Liberty, now the community cannot change some things if they want.

This concept completely misaligned the interests and will make a lot of confusion on future changes, this is make BTS like bitcoin block size discussions.

[theredpill]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea? I mean, I very appreciate the BM try to find a funding solution for things but this is so bad for BTS that for the first time ever I have consider moving on of this project, In the past after search all crypto projects at the time I end up here thanks of our community and values, and I would argue that FBAs are against both.

1 - Community or comum unity, our community token is BTS, creating other tokens means divide the community, make us not one set of values and goals anymore, now BTS have someone name in the chain and are in debt with then. If our value is to create a fair system, the FBA makes no sense.

2 - What the problem with dilution? - I mean, even if (is a big IF) that means a little short term drop in the price, if you are like me and really believe in the project, whats the matter? You can even buy some more at discount.

3 - Promises - Each token is like a promise, we cannot go on forever making promises upon promises to people, I understand that CNX have now little stake on the project, but this is not excuse for trying to use the BTS for making profit like that, to be honest I think is even disrespectful to old holders like me that lost more then 80% waiting things get done, now that they are, because of lack of capacity to approve things democratically, try to compromise future revenue streams like that. This smells like FED.

As an old stakeholder that sincere belief on the values of this project I urge the community to vote against this type of thing, BTS 2.0 is here and is great, now is time to democratize things, if we need funds we dilute, straightforward if we make money we burn, as one community, one token, one set of values. If you no matter who want a feature, raise the necessary approval in BTS terms, Will be my pleasure vote for you.

Let's price things in BTS not USD here please.

I would like to candidate myself as a proxy voter too, if you agree, my bts is theredpill.

What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

BitShares 2.0 is a superDAC platform for multiple profitable DACs designed to attract entrepreneurs with a profit motive.  This provides a magnet to bring more resources into the ecosystem.

The first DAC built on that platform was a decentralized exchange providing a set of backbone services and utilities for other businesses to build on.

Now we are into the phase of attracting more businesses - which will pay fees to use the platform's services making that platform more valuable.  The more businesses that "lock up" BitShares in their pipelines the fewer shares in circulation and the more valuable they become.  The more businesses that stimulate transactions the more fees and liquidity the platform earns.

Meanwhile, the STEALTH and Mutual Aid Society (MAS) functions start building up the capabilities we all crave for independence from The World System.

It the ultimate system, BitShares becomes an incorruptible alternative for much of that system.  But to do that, more businesses must be inside than outside the platform.

Ultimately, Fee Backed Assets are much more interesting to investors than User Issued Assets, so there are more reasons to get an account and trade here.

So we wind up with the functional equivalent of many interoperable blockchains.

Profitable, incorruptible, interoperable businesses with low barriers to entry and shared network effect all managed by its owners in a decentralized manner - just as the original vision in Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics.

So, again, What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

Fairness, I was a stakeholder on a BTS 1.0 that has already stealth, now I need to buy again if I want.

Democracy, Is easy to get people to vote on $300 bills without knowing how much they will pay, but I think this is wrong and frankly stupid. We have made the means to fund things and now we are changing that again because some of us cannot raise votes on features.

Community, We are losing our comum unity token, for BTS means fair system to all, now I don't know for sure, but this FBA for me just means much make money as is possible, I don't think this is gonna work on a open-source project.

On overhaul this concept is just put power on the hands of the people that have commit rights on BTS, this is exact the opposite we need right now, now we need trust, trust that the community have the power, and the things are not gonna change anymore. Business to build around, not within.

[Empirical1.2]

About XCP, that's cloud-fund business apart of couterparty, If XCP fails, they move the token over other platform, is not at all the same case of FBA.

FBA needs BTS and are like dilution, but the BTS holders just do not pay now, but pays lots more without know how much. And create a HUGE source of division, confusion and future conflict, because we can decide later to lower fees, implement improvements, etc... How will the FBA be divided after improvement? Or FBA features are gone to freeze us.

About prediction, yes we can, and is almost done, by my understand we just lack of UI and users for this. And is not gonna cost a fraction of augur.

Yes we can do a prediction market and it might do very well, but would it be better if we had a few million to develop the best model on the market and a few million more to spend on marketing, probably.

You're suggesting building a range of sub $30 000 blockchain additions that you want our overworked developers and apathetic shareholders to manage and promote. A lot of these are unique businesses that require specialist developers and talent from that industry.

Should we dilute ourselves to make a competitor to MUSE? Or will MUSE be a superior product because they've had more money to spend on development and they have large shareholders like Cob with industry relevant experience and contacts?

FBA's allow us to attract those specifically talented people to our platform and let them keep a lot of the profits, otherwise they will go crowdfund and build a DAPP on Ethereum and we will have to compete with tiny dilution, no specific talent from that business and our lazy shareholders will then have to try manage it better than them on top of everything else they're already responsible for.

I also quite like FBA's because it lets you choose which part of the business you want to invest in the most.
For example 'The Force Awakens' is a huge box office hit, so you might wish to invest in that but then you have to buy Disney shares but Disney may be down on the year because they overpaid for sports rights. A 'Force Awakens' FBA would have let you invest in and get more exposure to the product you believed in the most. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-20/star-wars-smashes-global-opening-weekend-record-over-half-billion-ticket-sales-will-

[Stan]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea? I mean, I very appreciate the BM try to find a funding solution for things but this is so bad for BTS that for the first time ever I have consider moving on of this project, In the past after search all crypto projects at the time I end up here thanks of our community and values, and I would argue that FBAs are against both.

1 - Community or comum unity, our community token is BTS, creating other tokens means divide the community, make us not one set of values and goals anymore, now BTS have someone name in the chain and are in debt with then. If our value is to create a fair system, the FBA makes no sense.

2 - What the problem with dilution? - I mean, even if (is a big IF) that means a little short term drop in the price, if you are like me and really believe in the project, whats the matter? You can even buy some more at discount.

3 - Promises - Each token is like a promise, we cannot go on forever making promises upon promises to people, I understand that CNX have now little stake on the project, but this is not excuse for trying to use the BTS for making profit like that, to be honest I think is even disrespectful to old holders like me that lost more then 80% waiting things get done, now that they are, because of lack of capacity to approve things democratically, try to compromise future revenue streams like that. This smells like FED.

As an old stakeholder that sincere belief on the values of this project I urge the community to vote against this type of thing, BTS 2.0 is here and is great, now is time to democratize things, if we need funds we dilute, straightforward if we make money we burn, as one community, one token, one set of values. If you no matter who want a feature, raise the necessary approval in BTS terms, Will be my pleasure vote for you.

Let's price things in BTS not USD here please.

I would like to candidate myself as a proxy voter too, if you agree, my bts is theredpill.

What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

BitShares 2.0 is a superDAC platform for multiple profitable DACs designed to attract entrepreneurs with a profit motive.  This provides a magnet to bring more resources into the ecosystem.

The first DAC built on that platform was a decentralized exchange providing a set of backbone services and utilities for other businesses to build on.

Now we are into the phase of attracting more businesses - which will pay fees to use the platform's services making that platform more valuable.  The more businesses that "lock up" BitShares in their pipelines the fewer shares in circulation and the more valuable they become.  The more businesses that stimulate transactions the more fees and liquidity the platform earns.

Meanwhile, the STEALTH and Mutual Aid Society (MAS) functions start building up the capabilities we all crave for independence from The World System.

It the ultimate system, BitShares becomes an incorruptible alternative for much of that system.  But to do that, more businesses must be inside than outside the platform.

Ultimately, Fee Backed Assets are much more interesting to investors than User Issued Assets, so there are more reasons to get an account and trade here.

So we wind up with the functional equivalent of many interoperable blockchains.

Profitable, incorruptible, interoperable businesses with low barriers to entry and shared network effect all managed by its owners in a decentralized manner - just as the original vision in Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics.

So, again, What particular values do you feel are not being fulfilled?

[theredpill]

About XCP, that's cloud-fund business apart of couterparty, If XCP fails, they move the token over other platform, is not at all the same case of FBA.

FBA needs BTS and are like dilution, but the BTS holders just do not pay now, but pays lots more without know how much. And create a HUGE source of division, confusion and future conflict, because we can decide later to lower fees, implement improvements, etc... How will the FBA be divided after improvement? Or FBA features are gone to freeze us.

About prediction, yes we can, and is almost done, by my understand we just lack of UI and users for this. And is not gonna cost a fraction of augur.

 

[TravelsAsia]

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.

I say if you can't do with dilution you can't do with FBA, because the prerequisite to be a FBA buyer is to be a BTS believer. (is misleading the perception that FBA is bring more people on board, i think is the opposite because complicate things)

So by your reasoning BitShares can't have a good prediction market built on it?

Investing in an FBA or an independent UIA doesn't mean you need to be a huge believer in BitShares, just that you believe BitShares is a good platform for business.

Counterparty (XCP) for example has businesses that crowdfunded on their platform that are worth circa $5 million combined even though XCP is only valued at $1.8 million. So clearly you can attract new money if the UIA or FBA are good, and you have a platform that's good for business.

 

If there was a good prediction market on BitShares, that's where my investment would go. 

[Empirical1.2]

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.

I say if you can't do with dilution you can't do with FBA, because the prerequisite to be a FBA buyer is to be a BTS believer. (is misleading the perception that FBA is bring more people on board, i think is the opposite because complicate things)

So by your reasoning BitShares can't have a good prediction market built on it?

Investing in an FBA or an independent UIA doesn't mean you need to be a huge believer in BitShares, just that you believe BitShares is a good platform for business.

Counterparty (XCP) for example has businesses that crowdfunded on their platform that are worth circa $5 million combined even though XCP is only valued at $1.8 million. So clearly you can attract new money if the UIA or FBA are good, and you have a platform that's good for business.

For example, some think a high performance blockchain like BTS would be great for decentralized gambling and they might invest in a decentralized casino FBA but they might not see as much value investing in BTS as a whole.

[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.

I say if you can't do with dilution you can't do with FBA, because the prerequisite to be a FBA buyer is to be a BTS believer. (is misleading the perception that FBA is bring more people on board, i think is the opposite because complicate things)

[Xypher]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[theredpill]

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea? I mean, I very appreciate the BM try to find a funding solution for things but this is so bad for BTS that for the first time ever I have consider moving on of this project, In the past after search all crypto projects at the time I end up here thanks of our community and values, and I would argue that FBAs are against both.

1 - Community or comum unity, our community token is BTS, creating other tokens means divide the community, make us not one set of values and goals anymore, now BTS have someone name in the chain and are in debt with then. If our value is to create a fair system, the FBA makes no sense.

2 - What the problem with dilution? - I mean, even if (is a big IF) that means a little short term drop in the price, if you are like me and really believe in the project, whats the matter? You can even buy some more at discount.

3 - Promises - Each token is like a promise, we cannot go on forever making promises upon promises to people, I understand that CNX have now little stake on the project, but this is not excuse for trying to use the BTS for making profit like that, to be honest I think is even disrespectful to old holders like me that lost more then 80% waiting things get done, now that they are, because of lack of capacity to approve things democratically, try to compromise future revenue streams like that. This smells like FED.

As an old stakeholder that sincere belief on the values of this project I urge the community to vote against this type of thing, BTS 2.0 is here and is great, now is time to democratize things, if we need funds we dilute, straightforward if we make money we burn, as one community, one token, one set of values. If you no matter who want a feature, raise the necessary approval in BTS terms, Will be my pleasure vote for you.

Let's price things in BTS not USD here please.

I would like to candidate myself as a proxy voter too, if you agree, my bts is theredpill.