Against FBA

[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.