This is the most confusing IPO of all time, wtf am I supposed to do?

[bitbro]

Adam is making fuss just to make it.  Invictus is a private incorporation, they promise you open source code and they let the market determine how their products, shares, etc. will be accepted. they never promised you an official public facing blog(although this forum is pretty good as one), nor did they promise you any other shit that you're whining about.  In this venture, investing was about intuition. quit griping and asking for every fraction of information and a chance to contribute to every decision.  To me, you, sir, are not practical and are not geared towards progress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oco101]

I3 needs to make a pretty version of this:

http://i.imgur.com/AliC4m0.png

blue/purple are PTS/AGS.

Green is BitShares X chains, with XT being the one that is initialized with ags/pts. Red is a later DAC like DomainShares

As bad as your drawing abilities are, I must say THAT is more clear information than I have received from anything associated with invictus...

SO I understand it is, my PTS will get me BTSX... after that only BTSX gets me those spinoffs in the green, PTS does not... however the red DAC down the road does apply to PTS but not BTSX... if I understand the concept...

something that looks like my 2 year old draw on my wall gives me more information than the thousands of messages I have read... if only I could understand picasso now I might see his paintings in a new way...

Lol lol I have to say that all your post are really funny. But what you say it true. It is very confusing, and this could be Invictus Achilles heel and this could be potentially deadly. That website better be ready, better have a blog and I hope they will have rules that not change anymore or if they are changing they should follow Adam suggestions. I'll see  people are getting confused more and more every day  if it keeps going like that it is a loosing battle for sure. Let hope that website will be really ready in march....

[toast]

I am basing that off of:

If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets.   For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.   Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.     

So the caveat is: nothing prevents a competitor from honoring less than 100%, but XT holders will probably be the ones launching the offshoot chains and so we should expect 100%

[toast]

They can't do that since they already pre-allocated 100%. Prior to introducing AGS, PTS only had 10% allocation (90% to miners AKA the power companies), so they justified introducing AGS because they found a way to do it while still rewarding PTS holders with even more. I3 never devalued the value of PTS in terms of shares of future DACs (unless you count the situation where planned to sell all your XT so you won't get future BTS X offshoots) and it is very unlikely that they would.

[Darkbane]

now is invictus going to try to raise more money with BTSX let us say AGSX, and then so the exact same thing they just did to PTS and AGS? essentially a nonstop pyramid of money raising for everything they can spinoff, so the company continue to make profits to pay employees and themselves?

[Darkbane]

I3 needs to make a pretty version of this:

http://i.imgur.com/AliC4m0.png

blue/purple are PTS/AGS.

Green is BitShares X chains, with XT being the one that is initialized with ags/pts. Red is a later DAC like DomainShares

As bad as your drawing abilities are, I must say THAT is more clear information than I have received from anything associated with invictus...

SO I understand it is, my PTS will get me BTSX... after that only BTSX gets me those spinoffs in the green, PTS does not... however the red DAC down the road does apply to PTS but not BTSX... if I understand the concept...

something that looks like my 2 year old draw on my wall gives me more information than the thousands of messages I have read... if only I could understand picasso now I might see his paintings in a new way...

[AdamBLevine]

I3 needs to make a pretty version of this:

http://i.imgur.com/AliC4m0.png

blue/purple are PTS/AGS.

Green is BitShares X chains, with XT being the one that is initialized with ags/pts. Red is a later DAC like DomainShares

Yes, that would be good too.  First they need an official blog and to start posting things there that are informative, clarifying and definitive.

[toast]

I3 needs to make a pretty version of this:

http://i.imgur.com/AliC4m0.png

blue/purple are PTS/AGS.

Green is BitShares X chains, with XT being the one that is initialized with ags/pts. Red is a later DAC like DomainShares

[AdamBLevine]

You'll notice I'm on the forum quite a bit too, *I* am not suffering from this development.  *I* have profited.   But *I* recognize that my profit comes at the cost of those who thought they could just invest and then come back when there was actually something ready for them to use as a normal user.    What % of Invictus's investors do you think that is?   I bet you a whole lot of them came from my discussions with Daniel and strong recommendations of his product.  So it is not myself I am concerned about, it is my audience who I chose to expose to this project that is now a very different arrangement than when they bought in.  And they did buy in.

Adam, I came to be an investor in PTS because of hearing your interview with Dan on Lets Talk Bitcoin, and because of reading the articles by Dan and Stan on your site. I was a donator to your program in its very earliest days when you had a tiny audience. I am also one of the very very few people who actually donated to the articles written by Dan and Stan on your site.

I am therefore in a quandry as to your objections to the business decisions made by Invictus. Would you rather the endeavor to have crashed and burned, but to have stuck tightly to the original plan? With the flawed and unexpected results of the release of the PTS blockhain, without changes the experiment would have been over. (and these absentee investors you are worried about would have lost everything)

Regarding these investors that you are worried about, the ones who you say invested and then went away to come back at some future date when their investment will have magically paid off, there would be nothing to come back to without changes to the original release plans.

I consider the way that Invictus has implemented its fundraising to be brilliant and innovative. I, like you, have done well by staying informed and keeping an eye on my investment despite my utter lack of technical savvy. I don't expect the Government, or Big Brother, or even Adam Levine to protect me if I choose to invest unconsciously and not stay fully informed. (recall that when you complained about us not being kept informed daily as to Keyhotee development, I was 100% with you. Now how would daily updates be of any use to anyone who "thought they could just invest and then come back when there was actually something ready"?)

If the problems with communication had been solved and adequate time given between the announcement of proposed changes and the implementation of those changes, I wouldn't be saying anything.   I do not feel like there has been a reasonable chance for people to learn about this and I feel like the very few venues Invictus even bothered reaching out to on the issue is unacceptable.  I had to demand that Invictus provide an article that we could post on the topic, they were not planning on doing that.  I have asked about their further plans to get the word out, and so far I have heard that there *are* plans but we're six days off from the deadline and I haven't seen an article in Coindesk, Bitcoin Magazine, was it posted to the bitcoin talk forums or anywhere else?   

If there was a public facing official blog, no problem!  People have a place to go if they want to stay informed.  What is their option now? 

When someone comes on the show and talks about an opportunity they want people to give them money for, and they define the terms that people then use to guide their investment, that's a deal.   If the deal had been "acquire this stuff then pay close attention to everything we do" that would be one thing, but I'll bet you many of those people don't even know anything happened.   

Is lost value not lost regardless of if the person knows?  If I go into your house and steal something you don't notice missing, is that not still stealing? 

I'm not sure if folks remember, but the big change protoshares made was implementing its Momentum algorithm that made it possible for individuals to mine with CPUs.  This was done to test the concept for Bitshares because "giving away" bitshares to the broadest number of stakeholders through non-monetary means was viewed as a way to built the largest most inclusive community possible.    It didn't work with Protoshares and so Invictus pivoted away from mining, but I don't get why moving away from mining means moving away from non-monetary distribution for the aforementioned vesting purposes.

As I mentioned, I am not unreasonable and I suggested that Angelshares be allocated a further 10% when it was first proposed in December.  10% for PTS holders, 10% for AGS holders and 80% available for future decision making with whatever left over going to miners.    That would have been a NEW deal while leaving the Protoshares deal to itself, and while it would have been bad for the price of protoshares because it provides another avenue to acquire BTS, it would have been broadly consistent with the original deal which involved a substantial non-monetary means of acquiring Bitshares.    Does anyone think offering only 10% of Bitshares with AGS would have been less successful?   I think the number didnt matter, it was just about being a cheaper (in an absolute sense) way to acquire BTS, and Invictus likes it because they essentially get to sell a product for what looks like a donation on their balance sheet.

[santaclause102]

I just want a single source, a single page, a single set of guidelines as to what they follow... "click here for only legitimate answer"... all I have right now is speculations, misinformation, and no central source of fact... read the forums yourself if you want me to read them, people give different answers to the same questions, I know I've read thousands of messages trying ot make heads or tails of it.

Heh, I can sympathise with that. Even in the last half hour, my opinion changed somewhat
All I can say is build your own investing strategy. I have personally settled on holding all three - PTS, AGS and BTC. Sure, it may not end up giving me the best return but I should be covered in this confusing landscape.

I also see you said I will get 2.5x the BTS XT than before... what is BTS XT... this is the first time I am reading about this now... I thought I was getting BitSharesX... you say 2.5x someone else says 1.3x someone else says 1.1x all messages posted within 24 hours... did they change name of the new currency already?!

haha it can realy be confusing. I think the reason is that with any optimization that balances different aspects the complexity increases.
The reason that there is no one final answer is that that depends on how things play out. Also many things are interdependent (AGS price is effected by PTS price and so on).
It might have been easier if there was no Proof of Work coin IPO (PTS) so I3 would have had more funds to increase shareholder value. But they also learned along the way which is only human. The idea for AGS might also have come along with changing from POW for Bitshare to POS.
Bytemaster/I3 didnt figure out a final product / investment oportunity and then presented it. They just put everything out to the comunity as their conception changed. I think it is impossible to stay ahead of the game / being most competetive in this business and at the same time have a plan that is fixed for the next year.
This strategy (adapting and comunicating it openly) I think is best for being most competetive. And you have to say that this strategy honoured those that dedicted their time and donated early (which helped to pay bounties and facilitate the Miami conference and gave feedback for all kinds of issues). Stan often said that it is always about balancing everything and that is true!

I personally like the idea that there are funds to be spend rather than given to electricity companies. It increases the value of all our investments. And should I3 have not issued AGS only for the shake of simplicity?

The answer to your question is: Bitshares XT is the same as Bitshares X except that the XT signals that it is in test phase. If there is no critical flaw the Bitshares XT will become the Bitshares X....

[onceuponatime]

You'll notice I'm on the forum quite a bit too, *I* am not suffering from this development.  *I* have profited.   But *I* recognize that my profit comes at the cost of those who thought they could just invest and then come back when there was actually something ready for them to use as a normal user.    What % of Invictus's investors do you think that is?   I bet you a whole lot of them came from my discussions with Daniel and strong recommendations of his product.  So it is not myself I am concerned about, it is my audience who I chose to expose to this project that is now a very different arrangement than when they bought in.  And they did buy in.

Adam, I came to be an investor in PTS because of hearing your interview with Dan on Lets Talk Bitcoin, and because of reading the articles by Dan and Stan on your site. I was a donator to your program in its very earliest days when you had a tiny audience. I am also one of the very very few people who actually donated to the articles written by Dan and Stan on your site.

I am therefore in a quandry as to your objections to the business decisions made by Invictus. Would you rather the endeavor to have crashed and burned, but to have stuck tightly to the original plan? With the flawed and unexpected results of the release of the PTS blockhain, without changes the experiment would have been over. (and these absentee investors you are worried about would have lost everything)

Regarding these investors that you are worried about, the ones who you say invested and then went away to come back at some future date when their investment will have magically paid off, there would be nothing to come back to without changes to the original release plans.

I consider the way that Invictus has implemented its fundraising to be brilliant and innovative. I, like you, have done well by staying informed and keeping an eye on my investment despite my utter lack of technical savvy. I don't expect the Government, or Big Brother, or even Adam Levine to protect me if I choose to invest unconsciously and not stay fully informed. (recall that when you complained about us not being kept informed daily as to Keyhotee development, I was 100% with you. Now how would daily updates be of any use to anyone who "thought they could just invest and then come back when there was actually something ready"?)

 

[Darkbane]

I also see you said I will get 2.5x the BTS XT than before... what is BTS XT... this is the first time I am reading about this now... I thought I was getting BitSharesX... you say 2.5x someone else says 1.3x someone else says 1.1x all messages posted within 24 hours... did they change name of the new currency already?!

3.33/1.3 = 2.5

As for BTSXT https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0  See, you didn't really go through hundreds of posts
[/quote]

I have read thousands of messages... how many hours can I spend trying to make heads or tails of ALL these changes and variations and spinoffs they make...

I started with PTS, it was supposed to become whatever the final name was... BitsharesX... now its XT and then 3 other things only linked to that

if you can't mine BTX... what is the sense of even having it?!?! why not just remove the middle man there and spinoff the other DACs onto PTS instead of adding this 50/50 split among PTS AGS... it makes no logical sense... except I see they want more angelshare investing in it... so they just want to do another round of money grabbing on top of this round that still has well over 100 days of "donations" to complete...

[Darkbane]

Bitshares XT is what is being released, but there may be three other chains that release from Bitshares XT.  This post seems to still be sticky'd as a roadmap, but i'm not sure it's accurate currently https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0

So I can completely ignore their official website as BitSharesX is now BitSharesXT

and BitSharesXT will have 3 DACs associated with it? and the only way to get those is through BitSharexXT...

so PTS becomes BitSharexXT... and now only BTX can get rewards from future DACs, giving PTS directly no value in this spinoff as they say the only way is through the BTX

so essentially they are replacing PTS with BTX to spinoff another angelshares investment expected in that... but original shareholders will not receive direct DAC compensation?

so a DAC on a DAC with no link back to avoid double paying of AGS, PTS, and BTX?

I'm not even making sense to myself now...

[sumantso]

I just want a single source, a single page, a single set of guidelines as to what they follow... "click here for only legitimate answer"... all I have right now is speculations, misinformation, and no central source of fact... read the forums yourself if you want me to read them, people give different answers to the same questions, I know I've read thousands of messages trying ot make heads or tails of it.

Heh, I can sympathise with that. Even in the last half hour, my opinion changed somewhat
All I can say is build your own investing strategy. I have personally settled on holding all three - PTS, AGS and BTC. Sure, it may not end up giving me the best return but I should be covered in this confusing landscape.

I also see you said I will get 2.5x the BTS XT than before... what is BTS XT... this is the first time I am reading about this now... I thought I was getting BitSharesX... you say 2.5x someone else says 1.3x someone else says 1.1x all messages posted within 24 hours... did they change name of the new currency already?!

3.33/1.3 = 2.5

As for BTSXT https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0  See, you didn't really go through hundreds of posts

[Darkbane]

someone directed me to a link... http://invictus-innovations.com/social-consensus/

so reading all that (which I have posted below) it says PTS shareholders will get 10% of all DACs in one point, which means AGS shareholders get nothing for some DACs... then below that it says there will be an even PTS 10% and AGS 10% for DACs built upon this OTHER platform... so PTS they are saying should get 10% no matter if it was assisted with AGS money or not, and AGS only gets 10% if it comes from that funding support... but have AGS shareholders been clearly informed they will only receive shares if the DAC was created on this "BCSL" platform? or are they under the impression they will get shares of everything too? I have so many more questions than I began with...


====================== website copy and paste below ==================


Statement of Social Consensus

Google defines a Social Contract as “an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits.” Another term that means the same thing is Social Consensus.  We use the terms interchangeably, but prefer Consensus because it is simply more accurate.   It also emphasizes the two-way nature of the consensus.   It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor this consensus.  It is up to the market to reject this, or not.

BitShares PTS (a.k.a "proto-shares") is a digital currency just like Bitcoin.  The difference is that PTS is backed by something of more tangible value - the future potential of an entire new  industry of Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DACs),  The PTS Social Consensus simply states that holders of PTS will give preference to DACs that initialize their internal money supplies proportionally to the current distribution of the PTS currency.  Savvy DAC developers do this to gain the rapid support of PTS holders who represent the overwhelming majority of knowledgable early adopters of DAC-backed currencies.  It is thus a more targeted give-away than the typical mining-based lottery system used by most crypto-currencies.  It targets established early adopters who can help get the new DAC adopted quickly.

Our first formal statement of the PTS Social Consensus was that we would support only DACs that honor BitShares PTS.  This was first published in our October newsletter and again in our forum on Nov 3, prior to genesis on Nov 5, 2013:

At a DAC’s pre-published launch time, the DAC’s genesis block shall be initialized
to precisely match the current unspent outputs of its corresponding PTS blockchain.

A week later we informally generalized this to at least 10% of all DACs we support. 

All chains shall be derived from PTS,
with a 1:1 mapping and 10% of the ultimate money supply of that chain.

The 10% requirement is a minimum, since any number greater than that also satisfies the consensus.  The 1:1 mapping and 10% minimum together set an upper limit on the number of shares a DAC may allocate.  If only 1.5M PTS exist at DAC release, then 15M is the derived upper limit to number of shares for that DAC.  Developers may equivalently exercise the right to scale the share count to the needs of each DAC while preserving percentages for all stakeholders.

In this document, we are formally endorsing an integrated BitShares Social Consensus for PTS, AGS and all derived BitShares DACs. This consensus is further defined in the BitShares Consensus Software License (BCSL).  We also clean up the language to better comply with the laws of our jurisdiction. To that end, Invictus will only endorse, support and promote DACs that meet all of the following applicable consensus requirements:

For all third party DACs:

Allocate at least 10% of its internal money supply to PTS holders at genesis.

For DACs built on the BCSL platform provided through AGS donations:

Allocate at least 10% of its internal money supply to PTS holders at genesis.
Allocate at least 10% of its internal money supply to AGS holders at genesis.
Allocate the last 80% at the discretion of each DAC developer.

We endorse 50-50 for the first BitShares DAC to equally honor mining-lottery and patron-donor schools of thought. 

For the first BitShares DAC:

Allocate 50% of its internal money supply to PTS holders at genesis.
Allocate 50% of its internal money supply to AGS holders at genesis.

The total internal money supply shall be scaled to 4 million shares, equally divided between the two schools.

This makes all of BitShares early supporters “official BitShares distributors” for those who arrive later!
We can't think of a more fair and decentralized way to make shares of the money supply available to them.

We hope you agree.

Specifications for the last 80% of other future DACs will vary with developer according to their business model and marketing strategies and shall be specified prior to their genesis.   Until they are defined formally on this page, all forum discussion is for the purpose of reaching consensus, and any sharing of current thinking there does not constitute a commitment to any specific course of action.

A formal statement of legal terms and conditions may be found here.