Appearance of Deflation vs No Dilution

[Shentist]

i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.

but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.

makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.

The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.

i thought we have a limit of 400.000 BTS? or can this also be changed? if this is, i didnt have the right information and the available shares should be adjusted on CMC.

[Riverhead]

i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.

but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.

makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.

The difference between Bitshares and Bitcoin here is that their supply is locked up with POW. They are unlocking them literally as fast as humanly possible. Our supply could be released tomorrow with enough votes.

[Shentist]

i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.

but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.

makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.

[abit]

Can you guys organize a professional PR team and marketing team, and make a plan, and execute according to the plan? Everyday some ideas show up and get buried after some days. Actions?

[xeroc]

In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?

There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.

Essentially, we just need to convince Gliss from CMC to change the supply in his database ..

[mint chocolate chip]

In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?

There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.

I like the idea myself, mainly because when a BTS is actually burned, it would reflect a reduce in supply that would be noticeable. As of now, burned shares would sort of get lost in the daily supply changes. Remember how great this thread sounded... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19014.0/all.html

[Riverhead]

In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?

There isn't really a process. Most people here know there are 3.7BB BTS. We just typically subtract the reserve fund when communicating supply.

[Empirical1.2]

I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats.  If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.

Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.

Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.

We survived that just a couple weeks ago. Imagine going through that again and then never hearing the words Dilution and Bitshares in the same sentence ever again...

However I don't think the price would change much. Typically with something like this it changes because the market is flooded with huge sell pressure. In this case the order books haven't moved at all because the supply on the open market hasn't actually changed. We'd just be reporting how many BTS actually exist.

The market has kind of priced in the reserve fund already but when you actually change the stated supply to reflect that large amount the market will price it in fully.

BitShares is actually getting to a very good place in terms of dilution, in that it's only 9 months away from paying off the merger and it's also been very conservative/circumspect with additional dilution above the 2.5 billion mark.

Adjusting the supply to 3.7 billion could be viewed as the next big negative dilutionary event, shareholders will also be concerned that we'll see more wasteful dilution when it's 'hidden' within the new total as opposed to being held more accountable with current approach.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

In practical terms how would we go through a process like this?

[Riverhead]

I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats.  If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.

Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.

Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.

We survived that just a couple weeks ago. Imagine going through that again and then never hearing the words Dilution and Bitshares in the same sentence ever again...

However I don't think the price would change much. Typically with something like this it changes because the market is flooded with huge sell pressure. In this case the order books haven't moved at all because the supply on the open market hasn't actually changed. We'd just be reporting how many BTS actually exist.

[Empirical1.2]

I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats.  If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later.

Don't know what the specific price fall would be but yes I'm fairly certain the price would fall >25%.

Adding the reserve pool to the total would be similar to what XRP did but I think it would have a negative price effect.

[puppies]

I think that changing our reported supply would lead to a drop in bts price of at least 200 sats.  If we are going to do this then I would sell the majority of my bts first so I could buy more back later. 

[sittingduck]

Perhaps it would be better to directly tax stakeholders to fund development. 

[roadscape]

It's a smart idea

[Riverhead]

The whole point of this exercise is to get away from the word dilution as it has a pretty bad stigma in many people's mind. It seems the general opinion is somewhere between, "yes the reserve pool should be included in supply" and "No it shouldn't because although they are real (they can be counted) their existence is already factored into the outstanding, i.e not DAC owned, supply."

If the shareholders decide to fund work for the DAC by spending from the reserve pool, and the shareholders own the DAC, it isn't dilution IMHO because no shares were created or destroyed. To be dilution they would have to be newly minted shares of an arbitrary amount. The market does not live with the specter of an unlimited number of funds suddenly being released onto the market. As JonnyBitcoin said it's already factored in as a known quantity.

Since the reserve pool is DAC owned and shareholder controlled the inclusion of them in the published supply shouldn't affect market price since they cannot all of a sudden flood the market any more than they can now. The big difference is "those in the know" understand they are there and the average trader does not.

It is my position that including the shares in the published supply would better illustrate the DAC's ability to fund itself, give a more accurate and public picture how many BTS actually exist, and take some of the political drama out of the DAC paying for work from the reserve fund.