Author Topic: BitShares X Product Roadmap - AGS/PTS Snapshots and More!  (Read 40191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.

I would caution against this.  I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.

AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.
Yeah, I realize that pts/ags is the snapshot chain, but PTS is ridiculously volatile - immediately after a snapshot it crashes. Not only that, but PTS is a POW crypto, pretty naff imo. I fail to see how distributing a small chunk (10%) to a snapshot of another dac would make it a ponzi scheme.. It'd be like buying users from one dac for a small introductory share each. PTS offers us nothing, BTSX offers us far more.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
the original plans were to have all banking/exchange DACs snapshot from the proto BTSX chain .. as BTSX grew to a DAC itself i am not sure if future banking/exchange DACs (i.e. BTSY) are going to snapshot from BTSX or PTS/AGS ... I think this will be discussed when it's about time

Offline pariah99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • I'm so meta even this acronym.
    • View Profile
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.

I would caution against this.  I realize this is kind of a slippery slope argument - If we keep snapshotting one dac after another, it's going to turn into a situation very similar to a ponzi scheme, where the true value is always a DAC or two down the line.

AGS and PTS were explicitly advertised as being vehicles for DAC snapshots, so there's no problem with those, but BTSX was never advertised as such.

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Can we snapshot other dacs instead of just pts/ags?
The social consensus is that a min of 10% goes to both ags & pts, but why not take a snapshot of btsx and other trusted bitshares dacs? It would seriously help distribution and also bring a lot more users to new dacs.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
further ... due to all recent debate on the MUSIC distribution ... the btsx distribution officially was 50%/50% .. but as the snapshot was made on AGS/PTS and i3 holding a HUGE portion of PTS (due to the AGS donations) .. they effectively own a big portion of btsx too .. we hade several discussion in this forum about whether this is good or not .. but the conclusion is the same as cob's (the head of MUSIC): the underlying firm/developers need to be payed and that stake is used for exactly that purpose .. boost the development and marketing ...

I jsut noticed I am way off topic .. just want to say that out loud :)

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
the issue here is, that Stan has no controll over people launching a third party DAC ... he cannot even force Dacsunlimited to do it.
however .. pretty much the same as with the social consensus about PTS/AGS hold here too.. further, a initial distribution HAS to be defined .. if the 3rd party would choose to not know the social consensus ... aka. not snapshoting from btsX when creating a bitsharesX derivate within the exchange ecosystem ... would make the community stop any kind of support ...

It is up to each developer to propose and "negotiate" their distribution strategy with the stakeholders they want to attract.  All we can do is work with the BitShares community to achieve a consensus.  (This usually involves stating our opinion and hiding out in the BitShares Bunker for a few days till the smoke clears.)

Our stated opinion was that, since PTS and AGS holders got 100% of BTSX, honoring BTSX at 20% would be the moral and mathematical equivalent of honoring PTS/AGS at 10/10 immediately after the Feb 28th Snapshot.

But this would then begin to diverge as people traded BTSX.  We concluded that this was a good thing since BTSX would now be a more accurate demographic of those who want to own a DAC eXchange than PTS/AGS and therefore would probably be what eXchange developers would prefer to target with their free samples.  In essence, they would be targeting active owners/users of an eXchange.  Perfect.

We also concluded that this would be fair to PTS/AGS holders because it was their choice whether to keep or sell their stake in that demographic.

Now, what to do with the other 80% is a case each developer has to make.  It is clear that some of it should be set aside to pay delegates so that the DAC can attract people to that role who are capable of attracting voters and allocating development and operational funds.  It might be justified to set aside some to attract other demographics and/or other partners the DAC needs.  There may need to be some funds set aside to develop the new concept, i.e. to pay the people you need to build the DAC before launch.  After launch, we think allocating shares for further development and maintenance should take place through the delegates, not necessarily a big war chest for the original developer who could theoretically lose interest and retire.

But all these things are free for each developer to negotiate with the collection of stakeholders she needs to make the DAC a success.  If she gets it wrong, someone will clone it and do the allocation differently.

All that said, it is still important to have the benefits of holding shares in PTS, AGS, BTSX, and any future genre-defining protoDACs be clear and unambiguous.  After all, this honor is part of what defined the value of that DAC. 

BTSX holders should therefore get at least 20% of new eXchange DACs.  If the new exchange is just a clone with a few different parameters and no real development or operational expenses, then that percentage should be much higher - with funds set aside for delegates being the only compelling exception we see in general.

If someone launches a BitShares DAC outside the eXchange family, then the consensus was to honor PTS and AGS holders who continued to participate after February 28th.  The family of non-exchange DACs already announced all fall into this category, since they were represented as such during the AGS campaign.

Finally, we have to give developers the freedom to negotiate as they develop and and reason about the optimum mix.  The first mix they ever mention when they are new and have done no great amount of thinking should not be considered an iron-clad commitment until they state it as such.  Usually this should happen at the time the snapshot date is announced, leaving at least two weeks for people to decide how to position their own proto-portfolio.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
the issue here is, that Stan has no controll over people launching a third party DAC ... he cannot even force Dacsunlimited to do it.
however .. pretty much the same as with the social consensus about PTS/AGS hold here too.. further, a initial distribution HAS to be defined .. if the 3rd party would choose to not know the social consensus ... aka. not snapshoting from btsX when creating a bitsharesX derivate within the exchange ecosystem ... would make the community stop any kind of support ...

Offline voldemort628

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
i hope it is still true that Bitshares X is the protoDAC of the exchange & bank family :)
Can Stan confirm this point?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Is this post still up to date? It is in the sticky section and promotes Bitshares Roadmap, but it looks to me like that information is outdated.
The general concept of snapshoting from existing chains is still valid and probably will always be. What changed are the names.

And, we not really had the XT blockchain available but directly ran into X .. upgrading it for new features when they become available.
BitShares XT, or XTS, still is the term for the testnetwork to figure out new features

drekrob

  • Guest
Is this post still up to date? It is in the sticky section and promotes Bitshares Roadmap, but it looks to me like that information is outdated.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?

If the reason it has to relaunch is because of problems that distort trading, I'm sure someone will relaunch from the snapshot rather than the latest state once the issue is corrected.

As a general suggestion, new BitShares X exchanges should launch from an announced future block of the BitShares X chain just as the Feb 28th snapshot was designated as a block 30 days ahead in the BitShares PTS chain.  This lets people trade their stake in that future family of DACs.   (In this sense, a percentage of all AGS contributions has now been made liquid for all future BitShares X derivatives!).  Over time there may evolve a whole tree of tradable proto-DACs that let people trade rights in the family for which they were the prototype.

Right now, there are two:  BitShares X is the prototype for bank and exchange DACs and BitShares PTS is the prototype for all other DACs.   But you can imagine that BitShares Bingo might be the prototype for a family of incorruptible gaming DACs, giving AGS and PTS holders independent liquidity to trade their stake in that family as well.

Upgrades to running exchanges should preserve the state of that chain's trading history if possible.  Only in the case of a catastrophic flaw in how that history has evolved, would you reset a chain back to its beginning.  We don't want people to fear their trades will be arbitrarily undone.  If they ever are unfairly undone, someone will fork a clone that is more fair.

Developers may propose other options if they can convince the market it would make more sense.  For example, suppose a proposed new chain combines the features of two running exchanges.  It might make sense to initialize the new chain from the current state of the two predecessors in some rational ratio.

Choose your mix, make your case to the supporters you want to attract, then ask how your competitor will beat you with a better mix.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 09:16:53 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?

If the reason it has to relaunch is because of problems that distort trading, I'm sure someone will relaunch from the snapshot rather than the latest state once the issue is corrected.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Clarify: If the Bitshares XT chain has to relaunch, isn't the snapshot of the new chain derived from the old chain?

Offline bytemaster

Quote
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares.  If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again.  Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment.  After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT.   However, all investments in BitShares XT proper should hold off until the likelihood of a reset to genesis due to catastrophic failure has passed.   Remember this is an economic experiment with new software with minimal testing and so I do not recommend investing anything you cannot afford to lose between Feb 28th and when XT has enough time under its belt that it has earned its valuation.     This is Bitcoin 2008...

What is III's marketing plan here? Since it's extremely risky for newcomers to buy BTS shortly after launch, it wouldn't make sense to do a full marketing campaign at launch. Also how are you going to determine BTS has enough time under it's belt. It's not unthinkable that a fairly big part of BTS holders are going to wait and see if the XT chain isn't in need of a reset, which would result in a fairly light test phase.

We are not going to market the XT chain nor encourage anyone to buy into it (very big gamble).    However, those who have an initial stake in the chain can speculate freely knowing that if something breaks the only thing they lose is their gains (or potentially losses ;) ).   This means that a price can still be discovered and the network can function. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline graffenwalder

Quote
Because BitShares XT is a test chain, there is potential for catastrophic bugs that result in invalid allocation of shares.  If this misallocation cannot be easily remedied by fixing a few transactions then we will recommend reverting back to the original genesis block and try again.  Therefore, the Feb 28th snapshot will be the most important snapshot for BitShares X investment.  After Feb 28th, if you want a stake in future BitShares X chains and variants your only option will be to invest directly in BitShares XT.   However, all investments in BitShares XT proper should hold off until the likelihood of a reset to genesis due to catastrophic failure has passed.   Remember this is an economic experiment with new software with minimal testing and so I do not recommend investing anything you cannot afford to lose between Feb 28th and when XT has enough time under its belt that it has earned its valuation.     This is Bitcoin 2008...

What is III's marketing plan here? Since it's extremely risky for newcomers to buy BTS shortly after launch, it wouldn't make sense to do a full marketing campaign at launch. Also how are you going to determine BTS has enough time under it's belt. It's not unthinkable that a fairly big part of BTS holders are going to wait and see if the XT chain isn't in need of a reset, which would result in a fairly light test phase.