Steam 7 days to sweat equity (sorry both with an 'e')

[arhag]

The reason I use "" on "fund" is because they just allocated bunch of virtual coins to themselves , but the market may not want to give these virtual coin value due to the way that it was allocated .

It is essentially the same funding model as an ICO [1], and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people willing to throw money at ICOs of various crypto projects in this space.

My only issue with ICOs (let's ignore the legal implications for now) is that it requires huge upfront payment (even if it's vested) to a single team that you hope will follow through on their promise. I prefer the gradual pay with dilution method like BitShares workers, assuming the holders are decentralized enough so that a single team cannot just unilaterally vote the worker to pay them. But as we have seen from the anti-dilution camp in BitShares, apparently the myopic stakeholders cannot be trusted to do what is best for the long-term benefit of the DAC [2]. So perhaps a benevolent dictator model (at least initially) will gain more success.


[1] To regulators reading this: it is nothing like an ICO. -thereverseflash     

[2] Maybe it would have been different if only vested BTS could vote. I don't agree with the VEST model of STEEM being used in BitShares, because I don't think the voters should be completely immune from the inflation that they vote for. But some small (with a hard-coded upper bound) interest rate could be offered to vested BTS (payed for by dilution) in addition to the right to vote in order to act as an incentive to vest despite the risk due to the lack of liquidity. Theoretically, this is still possible to implement in BitShares with a hard fork if people were okay with it.

[gamey]

Technically vests can be transferred and sold by transferring the account.  It just isn't easy.  Not including vests in supply would be grossly misrepresentation of investor interest.  Furthermore vests are required to transact and vote and govern.  They are voluntarily created and held.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a limitation of CMC. They're trying to provide their users with what they want. Adding a 'vesting' portion to CMC would make things needlessly complex.

CMC got rid of Banx because of a similar approach. It is very unlikely it'll happen the way you wish it would. While your project should be upfront about vesting and all that, don't expect CMC to count them. (And they shouldn't)

[fuzzy]

surprised with all the value brought by tony's seemingly endless well of anger, that he has not been interested in putting together a worker proposal.  If he had, he might have a bit more of an appreciation for why the team needs to pivot.  Apparently they are supposed to work for free endlessly (although i am relatively certain that would not stop the onslaught of attacks...

sry, but for "free" is a little bit underestimate. They got plenty of funds, but some of these funds got thrown away carelessly. I am pretty sure that bytemaster has a large
balance from mining PTS and this is the reason why he cannot compare his position with svks. in most cryptoprojects the devs are not paid because they are the founders and hold large positions, so i think it is not wicely that the founder leave this project without delevering what was promised. To say this project is complete and he moves on - leaves me just not understanding.

keep in mind what was promised for BTS 2.0 and with the mergers. So far not much was acomplished.

I disagree that not much was accomplished, but most of that really was because of the early merger (imho)-- which kept us from having chains like dns selling dpos to other demographics.  Id like us to have some documentation on the spending because though I agree they made some mistakes trusting the wrong people early on with some of the funding, I have a hard time believing the squandered itthe money.  Now with THAT said...all we have achieved is not only because of the cnx team.  However most of the other people sacrificing to make bitshares what it is today are not really making what they COULD if they stopped being loyal to bts only.   So i look at bms move just like i look at metaexchange for carrying other tokens or building other future projects they feel might compliment metaexchange.  People need to eat and if their own family wont feed them expect them to go searching themselves.

I could not fault you (or tony) for reaching out and trying new things (steem is brilliant -- save for the branding imho) to keep funds in their pockets. 

What is sad is that because of bms transparency he has to endure shit that the guy who aonymously created NXT or many other cryptoswill never have to endure.  He COULD have done it that way with bitshares and a LARGE number of speculative chains, and could pull together a small group to mine and then pump them together as an anonymous dev.  But the dude doesnt do that!  Really sad to me that he gets so much hell.  However, i will say our talk about funding is mute if there is not a solid accounting thereof.

[Empirical1.2]

sry, but for "free" is a little bit underestimate. They got plenty of funds, but some of these funds got thrown away carelessly. I am pretty sure that bytemaster has a large
balance from mining PTS and this is the reason why he cannot compare his position with svks. in most cryptoprojects the devs are not paid because they are the founders and hold large positions, so i think it is not wicely that the founder leave this project without delevering what was promised. To say this project is complete and he moves on - leaves me just not understanding.

keep in mind what was promised for BTS 2.0 and with the mergers. So far not much was acomplished.

I think BM has accomplished quite a lot with BTS, it is a great platform, there's also a limited amount he can do without development workers at this stage and they have said they are willing to continue develop features if shareholders vote/fund them.

Though we obviously have to take account of the fact that he has been working on & will be focusing most of his time on another DAC and adjust accordingly to make sure BTS stays competitive and will be successful.

[Shentist]

surprised with all the value brought by tony's seemingly endless well of anger, that he has not been interested in putting together a worker proposal.  If he had, he might have a bit more of an appreciation for why the team needs to pivot.  Apparently they are supposed to work for free endlessly (although i am relatively certain that would not stop the onslaught of attacks...

sry, but for "free" is a little bit underestimate. They got plenty of funds, but some of these funds got thrown away carelessly. I am pretty sure that bytemaster has a large
balance from mining PTS and this is the reason why he cannot compare his position with svks. in most cryptoprojects the devs are not paid because they are the founders and hold large positions, so i think it is not wicely that the founder leave this project without delevering what was promised. To say this project is complete and he moves on - leaves me just not understanding.

keep in mind what was promised for BTS 2.0 and with the mergers. So far not much was acomplished.

[btswildpig]

surprised with all the value brought by tony's seemingly endless well of anger, that he has not been interested in putting together a worker proposal.  If he had, he might have a bit more of an appreciation for why the team needs to pivot.  Apparently they are supposed to work for free endlessly (although i am relatively certain that would not stop the onslaught of attacks...

I think tonyk is not blaming them for leaving , but is mocking them for leaving to start a more hilarious method to "fund" themselves .

The reason I use "" on "fund" is because they just allocated bunch of virtual coins to themselves , but the market may not want to give these virtual coin value due to the way that it was allocated .

[fuzzy]

surprised with all the value brought by tony's seemingly endless well of anger, that he has not been interested in putting together a worker proposal.  If he had, he might have a bit more of an appreciation for why the team needs to pivot.  Apparently they are supposed to work for free endlessly (although i am relatively certain that would not stop the onslaught of attacks...

[Empirical1.2]

Technically vests can be transferred and sold by transferring the account.  It just isn't easy.  Not including vests in supply would be grossly misrepresentation of investor interest.  Furthermore vests are required to transact and vote and govern.  They are voluntarily created and held.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, like mining 80% of the initial STEEM isn't 'technically' a pre/instamine. We'll have to see how the market interprets it. I don't think it will be successful myself but good luck with the legendary CMC Pump.

I personally think the 0.47% will be listed as available supply on CMC and the rest will be listed as total supply like Ripple.
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/#markets so investors can still choose to include the total supply in their own calculations if they prefer.

Unfortunately if they allowed STEEM to count the 99.5% as part of liquid/available supply then everyone would use similar techniques, (Mining 90% to themselves, vesting 99.9% and then have $100 million valuations with a hundred dollar volume which would look pretty silly/undermine crypto valuations.)

[thereverseflash]

Technically vests can be transferred and sold by transferring the account.  It just isn't easy.  Not including vests in supply would be grossly misrepresentation of investor interest.  Furthermore vests are required to transact and vote and govern.  They are voluntarily created and held.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Empirical1.2]

They might have some 'secret sauce' 

Personally I'm not expecting it to be very popular among the crypto community, given they mined a large portion themselves and obfuscated that fact in their Bitcointalk ANN but they knew that would alienate them from a large group.

I think they're also going to attempt to get a very high valuation by getting CMC to value them based on total supply vs. their available/liquid supply. 

Only 0.47% of STEEM is liquid in individual accounts, this is going to make the pump on CMC legend... wait-for-it... dary![/b]

I'd like to buy STEEM .. Anyone willing to sell some OTC?

While CMC has given some leeway in the past on vesting shares I don't think they will when they make up 99.5%. If they do, it will still look pretty silly, claiming to have a high available supply valuation on a few hundred dollars volume.

So while it could be a good buy in the short term when more is revealed, I haven't really got it's potential yet personally, my loss possibly.

[btswildpig]

don't be so serious .

after all , it's just a alt-coin .

And after AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE/BTS.........    I don't think STEEM will be popular .

[tonyk]

A new chapter in an old book - "Steam - 7 days to sweat equity"


 (sorry both with an 'e')

"Steem - 7 days to sweet equity"


"...9 is the golden number in this one... as we give ourselves 9x of anything ever created (aside from the very very beginning when we gave ourselves 50X but who will ever remember that?, right?)

... pyramid schemes be damned, we will just give ourselves 9x for anything anyone makes...

...why have  "sweat equity" when we can give ourselves "sweet equity" in a flash? (reversed or not) "