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

[JoeyD]

agreed...and then you get into the fact that one of the main people hyping Ethereum actually left Invictus to do so...and there are questions as to why that I have resigned to admitting will likely never be answered.  I won't get into it again on here, but one should definitely research this on their own--and see my angry rant (somewhere on this forum).

Lol, seems I'm not alone with my suspicions. To be perfectly honest I started out by being very enthusiastic when hearing Vitalik announce Ethereum and started researching it (which lead me to discover Invictus and it's fundraising) and freeing up funds to invest in both projects. But then I heard some interviews with Hoskinson and it completely killed off all enthusiasm for Ethereum. He has said some very, very disturbing things; calling alts and experimentation signs of a disease and talking shit about bitcoin and all other projects and putting words in Satoshi's mouth as if he actually wanted to make Ethereum but was afraid to do so, while Satoshi in actual fact said the exact opposite since he was a proponent for separate block-chains using merged mining.

I get a very bad feeling of deja vu (reflections of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs) whenever he says something (actually I've heard him referencing Microsoft shareholders and app-stores almost bursting out in jubilation, when talking about Ethereum, leaving very little to the imagination as to his real motivation). Now instead of enthusiasm I've gotten the distinct impression that some key members of the  Ethereum-team want to build a centralized walled garden app-store, but without even bothering building the eco-system around the app-store in the first place, just purely profiting on other peoples previous efforts. Even worse Ethereum itself seems to have no goal/reason to exist other than to profit from the work of others. Keep in mind I don't know the man personally and I might be completely wrong about him, but so far he has been very consistent in his remarks and they are consistently disturbing. I seriously hope I'm wrong, I do not want to wait another couple of decades for innovation to continue, because of another 19th century style monopoly.

Larimer gives off a completely different vibe. Nevertheless they are really hurting themselves with the lack of easy accessible information and communication in my opinion. For example the vimeo-explanations of the concepts are actually pretty good, but incredible hard to find even if you know what you're looking for. Why are they hiding them instead of putting up a gallery for them on the site. Hell if writing out all the documentation is too time consuming, it would probably be enough to post a weekly/monthly youtube show in which you give a quick sitrep and maybe explain a few things and put a link to the forums for questions where the community might take care of the rest. White-board drawings with stick-figure representations of us shareholders for scale are very much appreciated.

Maybe something like a periodical reddit-style AMA, where Invictus addresses some of the top-voted questions/issues should be in the realm of possibilities until all websites, education and communication channels are up and running.

[fuzzy]

I've heard multiple people say it was better to eliminate mining and add angelshares because that "makes the deal better for PTS holders"  but really that's a bunch of garbage.

Before if you wanted to get Bitshares you could do it one of two ways - Acquire Protoshares or Mine Bitshares when it came out.   That meant anyone not wanting to mine or risk buying at post-launch market prices had to buy Protoshares, it was the only way.

Of course, Invictus didn't make any money off of that and so here comes Angelshares and the new deal where now instead of 10% of BTS going to PTS holders and 90% being mined over a number of years, it would be 50% with the other 50% going towards Angelshares holders.    This makes sense for Invictus because now they have money pouring in, but for PTS holders?  It means that your exclusivity is not only gone but so is any advantage you had.  Since 100% of the money supply is out day one you'll have immediately depressed prices as people sell to recapitalize some of their gains in Bitcoin or move out entirely as they see the financial opportunity having passed. 

Again, this is fine for Invictus, they got the funds and aren't much impacted except being able to buy more of the cheap BTS themselves.  It does however make one wonder why it was even worth buying or acquiring PTS since a) BTS will be available cheaply due to over supply and b) PTS is the WORST way to vest yourselves with Bitshares because of the math at work.   On February 28th Protoshares holders will get 1-1.5 Bitshares per PTS.  On February 28th Angelshares holders will get 3-4 Bitshares per AGS.   They both "cost" the same, but the more people who go into angelshares per day the worse the deal is for all of them.  Protoshares holders have the option of getting the worst return on investment available or giving their money to invictus and competing with everybody else for the remaining AGS before none of this matters any more.

When the deal gets better for someone, it gets worse for someone else.   I continue to be disappointed by the inability to acknowledge that.

Personally, I saw the price drop as an opportunity to buy more.  This is precisely what I did, and at a discount...especially if BitShares takes off and they can use most of the code for new DACs.

I am not so sure how PTS is garbage.  Has Invictus come out and said they plan to no longer develop DACs that honor PTS?

I've read Adam Levine's comments and I'm a bit confused as to why PTS-investors are getting such a raw deal. If I understand correctly the funding boost via AGS has increased the chance of succes and value plus roi of pts-holders immensely, without the pts-holders having to do or risk anything. (It even sounds like the ags-campaign has averted a trainwreck, because of the lack of funding)

Then again, I have not heard the LTB-show and only got wind of bitshares and Invictus after the ags-option was added. So from my perspective if only LTB-listerners were supposed to reap the maximum benefits of the Bitshares deal, that would be unfair and a raw deal for me and the people I've alerted to this.

So seeing how I only happened on this project by chance (because I was actively searching for projects like this, instead of alt-coins) I agree completely that Invictus could use some major PR and marketing work. Planning and investing more in clear information and getting the word out, could definitely increase attention and investments for Invictus. Each day you delay this is costing you(and us) dearly. Even worse I've heard loads of people taking credit for what I've only recently heard were Larimers/Invictus ideas to begin with. Ethereum and other  so called 2.0 (I know horrible term since were not even close to crypto 1.0 yet) are reaping the hype benefit for concepts that should have brought attention and support for Invictus.

agreed...and then you get into the fact that one of the main people hyping Ethereum actually left Invictus to do so...and there are questions as to why that I have resigned to admitting will likely never be answered.  I won't get into it again on here, but one should definitely research this on their own--and see my angry rant (somewhere on this forum).

To the Raw Deal PTS represents, as it stood before AGS, my BitShares PTS were only going to give me a 10% allocation of the total number of BitShares X when they came out.  Afterward it gave me 50%, which is a 40% increase if I just HELD my PTS.  This means everyone who thought investing in PTS before AGS came out is now getting 5x as many BitShares X. If they believed in Invictus enough to invest in BitShares AGS (AngelShares), they would be getting (using Feb 28th snapshot) approximately 12x the original deal. 

As for miners...what is keeping miners from mining PTS to this day?  Nothing...If they wanted to get a coin to mine, pump and then dump then sure they will be pissed, because BitShares PTS explicitly incentivizes people to hold them (much like Bitcoin).  I fail to see how any of this can be labeled garbage...that is unless the VC from China is someone with ties to HSBC or some other banking cartel (*cough cough*). 

The ONLY thing that I would fear, as an investor, is Devs coming in and copying all of Invictus hard work and then not honoring the social consensus in any meaningful way.  This is still possible, but Invictus used their brains to hedge against that as well...the AGS funds help to protect their intellectual capital by allowing them to HIRE Developers of promise and keep one step ahead at best and, at worst, have the ability to compete against those who would attempt to use their hard-earned capital (in time, experience AND money) to construct something similar.  AGS helps them retain the first movers advantage.

Really at a loss how any of this is bad, and trust me I was originally PISSED that they changed plans after I invested.  But Invictus listened to our concerns and went above and beyond to ensure the community was well compensated for their trust and the extra perceived risk they were taking by keeping their PTS after the change of strategy.  Those who left...well they don't have BitShares PTS or BitShares X, but they can still buy PTS/AGS for the next round. 

Disclosure:  I learned of PTS from Adam's show and invested in them 4 days after launch.  This has been a so-far wonderful experience for me...though I do reserve the right to change my mind in the future (but probably will not unless they as people change)

[JoeyD]

I've read Adam Levine's comments and I'm a bit confused as to why PTS-investors are getting such a raw deal. If I understand correctly the funding boost via AGS has increased the chance of succes and value plus roi of pts-holders immensely, without the pts-holders having to do or risk anything. (It even sounds like the ags-campaign has averted a trainwreck, because of the lack of funding)

Then again, I have not heard the LTB-show and only got wind of bitshares and Invictus after the ags-option was added. So from my perspective if only LTB-listerners were supposed to reap the maximum benefits of the Bitshares deal, that would be unfair and a raw deal for me and the people I've alerted to this.

So seeing how I only happened on this project by chance (because I was actively searching for projects like this, instead of alt-coins) I agree completely that Invictus could use some major PR and marketing work. Planning and investing more in clear information and getting the word out, could definitely increase attention and investments for Invictus. Each day you delay this is costing you(and us) dearly. Even worse I've heard loads of people taking credit for what I've only recently heard were Larimers/Invictus ideas to begin with. Ethereum and other  so called 2.0 (I know horrible term since were not even close to crypto 1.0 yet) are reaping the hype benefit for concepts that should have brought attention and support for Invictus.

[johncitizen]

Everything is clear and PTS holders are rewarded more than ever. What is so confusing? I dont even need to stalk the forums to figure it out.

There will always be those that are not happy. Take a look at NXT, master coin etc

This is the fairest and most well publicised IPO of all time.

[luckybit]

Using coindays to award a genesis block would really devalue PTS purchased and make it non-fungible.   As coin days continuously accumulate it would also be inflationary...

Interesting concept though.

You're right about it being inflationary, I was just throwing the idea out there to show that there are alternative options if people feel like things aren't fair. If enough people feel that way then rather than blame Invictus they can just build a better more fair distribution into their DAC.

[bytemaster]

Using coindays to award a genesis block would really devalue PTS purchased and make it non-fungible.   As coin days continuously accumulate it would also be inflationary...

Interesting concept though.

[luckybit]

Anyone making a new DAC could also reward shares based on how long PTS holders have held PTS in a wallet. This would encourage people not to sell or trade their PTS by giving them an incentive that future DACs may reward long term PTS holders based on how long they hold (Proof of stake).

That's just an idea for DAC developers who think it's unfair how PTS holders are being treated.

http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/87448377/66716b27fa

You also don't have to accept the recommendation of using Bitshares XT to allocate to the Bitshares chain. You can always use Angelshares and PTS in any mix you want as long as at least 10% go to each.

[Stan]

What's happening here is fundamentally the same as with mastercoin exodus, nxt funding, counterparty funding... if BTS gets hit I think the whole DAC movement will get hit. Think your legal chances are better if your asset's name is *coin instead of *share? Unfortunately that might be true...

Invictus isn't Bitshares. Invictus isn't the DAC movement. if Invictus were to go down the code is out there so we could contract any new group of developers to work on it. This in computer science is redundancy and it allows for our social network to be both decentralized resilient.

Invictus is not too big to fail. They are highly competent programmers but once Bitshares is created it will fund itself. I even posted some ideas on an autonomous bounty system somewhere in the forum so in the end if you own a DAC you own software which acts like a company but which isn't run by humans so you cannot sue it in a court.

Bitshares once designed is not run by humans. Dan from Invictus isn't running Bitshares on his company laptop. We the users will become the Bitshares networks and we the holders of PTS and AGS the owners of the chain and all future chains.

If we don't like the direction Invictus takes the chain we can use Angelshares to crowd fund another group of developers to make a better version of the DAC. This would be completely wasteful if we are happy with Invictus's work but that is always an option because whoever controls the value (and in this case it's the investors) decides the direction.

So in theory you could have a Bitshares chain which has an updated version of Protoshares, which adheres to the social consensus, and which is 85% mined. Invictus is not stopping us and couldn't stop us from doing it.

Yes!  In fact we have offered to assist other competent startups, teams, entrepreneurs, and individuals to become developers of DACs and DAC infrastructure just so we can further decentralize everything.  We have even been working to decentralize Invictus itself in several important ways. 

[luckybit]

What's happening here is fundamentally the same as with mastercoin exodus, nxt funding, counterparty funding... if BTS gets hit I think the whole DAC movement will get hit. Think your legal chances are better if your asset's name is *coin instead of *share? Unfortunately that might be true...

Invictus isn't Bitshares. Invictus isn't the DAC movement. if Invictus were to go down the code is out there so we could contract any new group of developers to work on it. This in computer science is redundancy and it allows for our social network to be both decentralized resilient.

Invictus is not too big to fail. They are highly competent programmers but once Bitshares is created it will fund itself. I even posted some ideas on an autonomous bounty system somewhere in the forum so in the end if you own a DAC you own software which acts like a company but which isn't run by humans so you cannot sue it in a court.

Bitshares once designed is not run by humans. Dan from Invictus isn't running Bitshares on his company laptop. We the users will become the Bitshares networks and we the holders of PTS and AGS the owners of the chain and all future chains.

If we don't like the direction Invictus takes the chain we can use Angelshares to crowd fund another group of developers to make a better version of the DAC. This would be completely wasteful if we are happy with Invictus's work but that is always an option because whoever controls the value (and in this case it's the investors) decides the direction.

So in theory you could have a Bitshares chain which has an updated version of Protoshares, which adheres to the social consensus, and which is 85% mined. Invictus is not stopping us and couldn't stop us from doing it.

[luckybit]

Well this was a good 5 page read, lots of information and I have to agree with many points made by many people. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over this next week and into what we all hope will be many successful launches of the various products.

The #1 thing I am hearing through all these posts is the need for a central location for the "official word" on these rules and guidelines. A forum is a great communication tool, but a blog or product FAQ is a more professional way to set these very important factors and descriptions in stone so to speak. There is no doubt that it is all very confusing unless you have the time to dedicate many hours of reading a day to keep up with it. (many don't)

That being said, here is the article that Adam mentioned earlier that was recently posted over on the LTB site.
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/
This is a prime example of what should be available on the main Invictus site, specifically the bitshares product page. Utilize a product blog for official statements and updates, use the forums for discussions, update the blog when things change, rinse and repeat.
I'm very much looking forward to earning my on anything.

this leaves more legal questions since they are actually calling us "shareholders" in this announcement... which brings into question this whole "donation" thing even more (not just legally with the "stockholders/donators", but what about the IRS come tax time, this is taxable income to them)... this is a huge can of legal worms that could cause the entire value to be expunged by a large lawsuit or FTC investigation... this is what worries me... they are muddying the waters SO much calling things by different names every step of the way as if they are trying to legally sidestep something to create a legal barrier for which they have flat out broken wide open... I wish they would just call the apple an apple... so we can have clarity about buying oranges here...

We are shareholders in the software itself, not in Invictus. In the social consensus license I deliberately suggested the phrase "value supply" be used. Units of value don't have to be owned and in this case are not owned by any centralized entity. Those units of value are shares or are currency units in the sense that value is being exchanged.

But Invictus is not the source of the value. The software itself is the source of the value just as with Bitcoin. So while Bitshares may someday be seen as a commodity like a stock and there might be some sort of tax implications, there is no direct connection between Invictus Innovation and Bitshares beyond the fact that they are writing the software.

This means it can be forked and Invictus wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's owned by the community and that is why the social consensus exists. The social consensus uses the language of the law to guarantee that the community of shareholders owns Bitshares.

This is why 50% is owned by PTS holders and 50% owned by AGS holders. AGS holders brought more value to the project because they donated money at a critical time. Yes it's a donation and not a payment. The donation is to fund development of the software and Invictus Innovations are more like contractors doing the job of development rather than owners.

I hope this clarifies things.

[luckybit]

When I read Adam's arguments, I realise, even if I consider only my selfish profits, that as a long term PTS holder I may not be getting a better deal. The argument that is rolled out (by me too) is that the jump from 10% to 50% means that PTS holders are getting rewarded.

However, in the original scheme, only 400k BTSX would have been available at the start. In the new scheme, there will be 10 times more. Sure, PTS holders got 5x the original allotment but then they have to contend with 10x the initial supply.

So, not only the initial supply is huge, PTS holders will also have to contend with BTSX owners who have gotten them for even less than 0.0025 BTC in some cases through AGS route. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run - I dunno.

Personally, I am covered. I have PTS, AGS as well as BTC (to buy cheap PTS and/or BTSX in March); and I do believe that I3 has the best of intentions in all these changes. This is new territorry, and it was difficult to get the right scheme from the start.

Exactly.  Guys like us are fine, this IS a win for those who understand the situation enough to position themselves accordingly, but how to best do that is VERY confusing

Btw, its none of my business, but converting 1 PTS for 0.9 AGS (as has been happening) may not be the best of strategies.

Maybe!  Then again, maybe it's better to buy ALL AGS so you can maximize your BTS, sell half your BTS (still have more left over than just getting BTS from PTS) and use the proceeds to buy your original PTS back at the deflated price.   The whole situation is so confusing I really don't know what the best way to protect yourself is.    It's my understanding that AGS and PTS were being amalgamated into BTS for future-chain purposes because otherwise you have to manage AGS and PTS investors differently.  Am I mistaken?

Here is a solution. Once Invictus fulfills their obligation and releases Bitshares and the associated DACs then the community can take control and also release DACs of our own.

We can release DACs which favor people who held onto PTS and give 35% to PTS and only 10% to AGS for example. So because of this the AGS strategy may not be the wisest long term strategy.

I'm holding PTS and BTC and I will just buy more PTS on the dip. If PTS holders feel like they are being abused or mistreated the truth of the matter is that the long term holders whether it be PTS or AGS will decide how to fulfill the social consensus.

So I hear you're making a DAC? If you want to make PTS owners in your audience who followed Invictus whole then you can offer PTS holders a greater percentage than AGS holders. Appealing to Invictus is not really the answer, take the actions you deem necessary because the social consensus license allows for that.

I know how you feel, and I had the exact same debate on this forum the moment they switched from mining. I still don't know if I missed out not buying enough Angelshares but I'm not willing to give up PTS for Angelshares because I don't think Bitshares will be the most important DAC and I also don't think the most important DAC will be developed by Invictus.

What matters most is the social consensus, not Invictus.

[Darkbane]

this leaves more legal questions since they are actually calling us "shareholders" in this announcement...

Considering that the product is called 'BitShares' this should be no more problematic than 'Disney Dollars', 'Dollar Rent-a-Car', 'Dollar General' stores, etc., none of which is controlled by the Federal Reserve System or the US Treasury Department.  Likewise, Federal Express is not operated by the Department of Transportation, and Royal Crown Cola is not owned by the House of Windsor.

which brings into question this whole "donation" thing even more (not just legally with the "stockholders/donators", but what about the IRS come tax time, this is taxable income to them)...

Corporate taxes in the USA are paid on profits. Expenses incurred in the development of BitShares, including salaries, travel, and marketing, are subtracted before taxes are calculated.

...this is a huge can of legal worms that could cause the entire value to be expunged by a large lawsuit or FTC investigation... this is what worries me... they are muddying the waters SO much calling things by different names every step of the way as if they are trying to legally sidestep something to create a legal barrier for which they have flat out broken wide open... I wish they would just call the apple an apple... so we can have clarity about buying oranges here...

If it turns out that the term 'shareholder' should be changed to 'BitShareholder', 'stakeholder', 'sponsor', or whatever, Invictus Innovations can issue a clarification.

With regard to donations to for-profit entities, ten minutes of searching online turned these up:

"For-Profit Charity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_charity

"For-Profit Charities"
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/09/forprofit_chari.html


"Philanthropy Google’s Way: Not the Usual"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/technology/14google.html

"The Reasons for For-Profit Philanthropy"
http://www.brooklaw.edu/newsandevents/blslawnotes/2010-2009/fall/googleforprofitphilanthropy/page3.aspx


"Five Ways to Realize Profits and Missions"
http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/10/five-ways-to-realize-profits-and-missions/


"Canonical Opens Donations for Ubuntu, Lets You Put Money for a Mobile Version"
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Canonical-opens-donations-for-Ubuntu-lets-you-put-money-for-a-mobile-version_id35383

My problem being, their intermixing of the words, does not leave a clear and concise term for what it is you are receiving... are you a donator... are you an earner... are you an investor... are you a shareholder... are you a competitor... they have intermixed all of these terms and each one has different legal liabilities...

absolutely a for-profit company may accept donations... however they are taxable income but being represented as a donations... in MANY of the 50 american states, you MUST follow certain procedures and statement when you make that claim, you must supply notice that is it not deductible on the persons side because they are not a non-profit organization, some states say you must inform people the donation can be taxed by the IRS, and some states have all sorts of other goofy laws... so I am not challenging if they can accept this money, I am challenging the problems that may arise as a result of HOW they have taken this money...

they have left the door wide open to interpretation by not clearly defining within each states regulation what must be stated to people exchanging this "commodity" to them means... they've simply called it 5 different things on their AGS page... thats a serious issue for the community because this was promised to develop our community... which is the premise we all "donated" with... would people donate $20 million dollars if they knew $10 million could be given to the government... which seems to be the very "beast" we are trying to avoid with decentralization... would people donate if they knew their money would not be put towards them... would they donate if they knew this was a for-profit business that has no legal obligation to the community, where-as a non-profit would have stronger regulations preventing some expenses deemed inappropriate that a for-profit is not held to the same standard...

what they SHOULD be doing is saying you are a customer, who is buying this product, and this is the price... by having "donations", "competition", etc etc... they are opening the door to allowing someone else to decide in a court of law what it truely represents versus clearly defining it and protecting our community... thats my issue...

corporate taxes are not purely based solely on profits... there are many taxes they must pay along the way including payroll, healthcare, etc etc that will be taxed irregardless of profit along with state local and other federal taxes... the health affordable care act alone introduces dozens of new taxes you can't escape... and depending how employees are classified as independant contractors or not, even more taxes... they may release "bounties" but even some of those could be taxable depending on the terms of the contract work the individual could be seen as an employee under certain terms... there are a whole host of taxes you can not escape so some WILL be paid no matter what... it also depends how this is structured, is this actually incorporated or are they "doing business as" under the CEO's social security number which opens the door to even more taxes and liabilities...

also the "product" is not bitshares... people are buying/donating/earning/competing for AGS shares, which give a dividend payment of bitshares... you see where that muddies the water between stockholders and investors too now... the only way to obtain AGS is to exchange a commodity of some form for it, and as a result you are given something else that has other meaning and value... that alone very well could be a representation of an IPO under the securities and exchange commission...

[CWEvans]

this leaves more legal questions since they are actually calling us "shareholders" in this announcement...

Considering that the product is called 'BitShares' this should be no more problematic than 'Disney Dollars', 'Dollar Rent-a-Car', 'Dollar General' stores, etc., none of which is controlled by the Federal Reserve System or the US Treasury Department.  Likewise, Federal Express is not operated by the Department of Transportation, and Royal Crown Cola is not produced by the House of Windsor.

which brings into question this whole "donation" thing even more (not just legally with the "stockholders/donators", but what about the IRS come tax time, this is taxable income to them)...

Corporate taxes in the USA are paid on profits. Expenses incurred in the development of BitShares, including salaries, travel, and marketing, are subtracted before taxes are calculated.

...this is a huge can of legal worms that could cause the entire value to be expunged by a large lawsuit or FTC investigation... this is what worries me... they are muddying the waters SO much calling things by different names every step of the way as if they are trying to legally sidestep something to create a legal barrier for which they have flat out broken wide open... I wish they would just call the apple an apple... so we can have clarity about buying oranges here...

If it turns out that the term 'shareholder' should be changed to 'BitShareholder', 'stakeholder', 'sponsor', or whatever, Invictus Innovations can issue a clarification.

With regard to donations to for-profit entities, ten minutes of searching online turned these up:

"For-Profit Charity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_charity

"For-Profit Charities"
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/09/forprofit_chari.html


"Philanthropy Google’s Way: Not the Usual"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/technology/14google.html

"The Reasons for For-Profit Philanthropy"
http://www.brooklaw.edu/newsandevents/blslawnotes/2010-2009/fall/googleforprofitphilanthropy/page3.aspx


"Five Ways to Realize Profits and Missions"
http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/10/five-ways-to-realize-profits-and-missions/


"Canonical Opens Donations for Ubuntu, Lets You Put Money for a Mobile Version"
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Canonical-opens-donations-for-Ubuntu-lets-you-put-money-for-a-mobile-version_id35383

[jae208]

I'm very much looking forward to earning my on anything.

wasn't dropped from Bitshares XT?

This is exactly why we need this Blog so that this information gets outs quickly and accurately

[jae208]

Well this was a good 5 page read, lots of information and I have to agree with many points made by many people. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over this next week and into what we all hope will be many successful launches of the various products.

The #1 thing I am hearing through all these posts is the need for a central location for the "official word" on these rules and guidelines. A forum is a great communication tool, but a blog or product FAQ is a more professional way to set these very important factors and descriptions in stone so to speak. There is no doubt that it is all very confusing unless you have the time to dedicate many hours of reading a day to keep up with it. (many don't)

That being said, here is the article that Adam mentioned earlier that was recently posted over on the LTB site.
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/
This is a prime example of what should be available on the main Invictus site, specifically the bitshares product page. Utilize a product blog for official statements and updates, use the forums for discussions, update the blog when things change, rinse and repeat.
I'm very much looking forward to earning my on anything.