Author Topic: DACIndex.com now live  (Read 8836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2014, 05:21:55 pm »
Toast:
You're correct, I looked at Invictus products early for this, and my early documents lay out a scenario where 20% of LTBcoins created (which will be the only way to buy advertising time on the LTB network) were given to PTS/AGS holders, but in my later conversations with Daniel he suggested we use another platform.

The choice is between Mastercoin and Counterparty.   Mastercoin has more resources and I know the team well, but they have lots of baggage.  Counterparty has a bunch of legitimacy and has been much faster/cleaner with development, but they cannot help make LTBcoin happen besides giving me the same tools as are available to everyone else.  That's important because this stuff is still hard, in six months it won't be but right now it still is.


Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There already is a way, there are two independent implementions of the  code for taking genesis block snapshots.

People keep making suggestions like this... I still haven't seen *any* development effort publicly ask for AGS money. I'm not convinced invictus is just hoarding it as much as waiting for anyone who can do anything with it to show up.

There are two bounty proposals up right now waiting for any response from invictus.   And apparently the independent implementations weren't good enough for Barwizi, who is a developer himself and who fulfilled many bounties in the PTS ecosystem but who could not figure out how to honor PTS holders.  Also notice AGS holders were completely ignored.   

Most people aren't advertising the fact that they ask for money, they want to make sure it happens before they talk about it otherwise not getting it looks like you tried and failed, which implies you might not be worth other people funding.

So you're not going to see this happen in public, but look around - How many new development teams have jumped onboard creating DACs with Invictus?  The forums are an echo chamber, I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had with people who want to know if I'm still following invictus because they want to jump.

I wouldn't take it that far - I3 still offers enough internal development to hold PTS at ~$6 after the Bts dividend, which is based mostly on the fact that i3 will produce new DACs on their own - much less because of potential 3rd party initiatives.  Anyone of these potential jumpers must see it differently



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

The price decline has been because people see nothing on the horizon that would do the same, so instead of this being the first in a successful cascade of launches, it's the air being let out of the balloon. 

If this is an ecosystem, it needs multiple development teams working towards the same broad goals, going about it in their unique ways.   If this is a crowdfunded monopoly we're doing great.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2014, 05:26:32 pm »
Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

I wouldn't call it "proven" until BTS X actually launches and works. It would have been trivial to prove the model with any shitty altcoin DAC (MMC is pretty much this), but somehow I think things will look different if people discover PTS through BTS X.

By the way I would highly suggest Counterparty, I'd even help you out for some LTBcoins =]

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2014, 05:28:02 pm »
Except Protoshares should be *more* valuable now than before the split, because now the model has been "proven" and it's no longer speculative if PTS will deliver you another product without losing your PTS

I wouldn't call it "proven" until BTS X actually launches and works. It would have been trivial to prove the model with any shitty altcoin DAC (MMC is pretty much this), but somehow I think things will look different if people discover PTS through BTS X.

By the way I would highly suggest Counterparty, I'd even help you out for some LTBcoins =]

[email protected]
Email me at [email protected]

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2014, 09:29:34 pm »
Great set of discussions guys!   :)

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...
  • AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.
  • For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public.  Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductive
  • Those who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.
  • The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs.  We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.
  • PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again.  Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers.  Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.
  • The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest.  The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July.  We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.
  • Invictus has been operating informally in honest-broker mode since the Fourth of July.
  • Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.
  • We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.
  • We do not care who develops each DAC.
  • It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.
  • Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company.  They want the security of being somebody's employee.  So we hire them to give them that security.  Does that make them suddenly ineligible?
  • Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
  • To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
  • Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
  • If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you.  :)
  • We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
  • We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
  • If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.
  • A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing.  Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies.
  • The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder.  The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing.  Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0).  Those are the incentives that matter.
  • How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter?  Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?
  • Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
  • Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?
  • Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions?  Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?
  • Which list is longer?  Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?
Thoughts?   :)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 12:50:54 am 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 xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2014, 09:33:00 pm »
Great set of discussions guys!   :)

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...
  • AGS funding ends in July and those funds must support ecosystem infrastructure for the multi-year life cycles of all sponsored DACS.
  • For example, the big advertisement blitz for a DAC must happen after it has passed all testing and is considered robust enough for the general public.  Burning those funds now would be wasteful, even counterproductive
  • Those who understand the published and oft-repeated game plan ought to be delighted that PTS is on sale now.
  • The function of PTS is to build and track interest in future DACs.  We have seen how that works precisely as planned and as publicly predicted.
  • PTS will rise and fall again...and again...and again.  Each peak is an exit point for unbelievers.  Each valley is an entry point for new believers and the old faithful.
  • The valleys are very bad places to be arguing for us to burn PTS - its when their buying power is the lowest.  The next natural (announced) peak is the Beyond Bitcoin conference in July.  We build to a creshendo there and deploy reinvigorated PTS to get twice as much done.
  • Invictus has been operating informally in a neutral honest broker mode since the Fourth of July.
  • Setting up a formal neutral honest broker entity takes time and regulator approvals but is well underway.
  • We have repeatedly said we are building a decentralized industry, not a big company.
  • We do not care who develops each DAC.
  • It doesn't matter to us whether a DAC or component is developed by an employee, a contractor, a consultant, a bounty hunter, a start-up, or a third party.
  • Some good developers don't want the risk of being their own company.  They want the security of being somebody's employee.  So we hire them to give them that security.  Does that make them suddenly ineligible?
  • Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
  • To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
  • Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
  • If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you.  :)
  • We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
  • We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
  • If we have not sponsored a proposed DAC yet, its because it hasn't crossed that minimum threshold.
  • A new developer can get plenty of incentive from the remaining 80% she has to allocate in what she is developing.  Owning PTS and AGS should not be her incentive. Owning shares in her own DAC should be where her heart lies.
  • The incentive to honor AGS and PTS holders is independent of actually being an AGS or PTS holder.  The incentive is to attract a community of proven supporters to critique and evangelize what you are doing.  Read the 10 Natural Laws again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2876.0).  Those are the incentives that matter.
  • How would you suggest we improve on Shark Tank article in the February newsletter?  Does it not meet your goals of building public interest by holding a competition and involving the community at every step in evaluating and selecting a winner?
  • Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?
  • Can you make us a list of potential Shark Tank Judges who have consistently demonstrated a clear understanding of all the above considerations?
  • Is there another list of those who you would absolutely not want to have involved in making these decisions?  Those who consistently offer non sequiturs and fail to consider the Big Picture?
  • Which list is longer?  Do you really want to have the combined members of both lists vote on how the industry's precious resources are deployed?
Thoughts?   :)
+5%

Thanks for cleaning thing up .. need to read this a little more often though ..
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 12:52:49 am by Stan »
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2014, 11:18:23 pm »
Great set of discussions guys!   :)

Let me add some more thoughts for you to chew on...
  • Do you really want to exclude our top talent from working on AGS-funded projects?  Should we hire someone lesser-qualified and make them work as a consultant or bounty hunter instead of as an employee?
  • To get risk-averse top talent quit their secure day job to sign on as an employee, they always want to know their job is funded for at least a year, sometimes two.  Should we stop raising funds now and spend all the existing funds in the next six months as some have suggested?  What is our recruiting potential then?
  • Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?
  • If you want to offer your services as an industry evangelist, start another incubator and convince people you have a better way to run it.  We might even offer to kickstart you.  :)
  • We are eager to fund any competent developer to develop any viable DAC, but the developer must be truly competent, put his own skin in the game, and have an idea better than the ones that are already queued up for development.
  • We will gladly fund a qualified and committed 3rd party to build any of the DACs we have already queued up.  You can get to the top of the list and be funded even without having your own idea.  Convince us you can and will deploy something near the top of our queue.
  • Should we fund every DAC that comes along as soon as it is proposed without holding any form of competition?  Do you really want bytemaster not to filter, sort, and rank them?

 +5%

There are no jobless developers who are competent.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 01:51:00 am by toast »
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2014, 01:34:34 am »
http://dacindex.com

Part one of this two part project is out in minimum-viable-product form.   Tracks all 2.0 metacoins right now using CoinMarketCap data, we're moving towards custom metrics and figuring our the best way to determine an index price.  I'm thinking it might be market cap / 1,000,000 BUT with coins like XRP and NXT in there you can't really do anything by market cap because their volume is soooooooooooo low relative since most of the coins are held in few hands and don't trade.

So Protoshares is doing well because we're doing the primary ranking by 24hr market volume, which is a more real estimation of whats going on.

Comments are welcome but just be aware this is a very early project and a proof of concept launch.

This is excellent! Great job.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2014, 01:50:07 am »
Why not have a simple way for developers to start an AGS 2.0 fund for any qualified DAC team that wants to develop - let them do more fund raising on our forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are some of my thoughts and ideas taken from another thread. I think an Awardshares should be created as a decentralization of resource allocation. Angelshares could just be another award added to Awardshares.  Apply these ideas where necessary:
Now sure would be a good time to take some of those angelshares funds and create a big bounty that is paid to the first successful dac to pass xx% profitability for its token holders, honor PTS/AGS with 10% each and survive 6 months.  Then it would be *obvious* that PTS will have value in the future, whereas right now honestly who knows.  In the video it said that Bitshares Music was currently in development but when I spoke to the invictus folks it sounded like they were thinking early 2015 as a reasonable guess. 

This seems like an exceptionally good use of AGS funds as it adds value to the ecosystem and provides a very attractive reason for people to develop for invictus based technologies and honor the 'invisible hand' social contract vs. picking one of the literally seven other protocols that are tackling this same broad problem.   Invictus does not exist in a vacuum, but it's developing like it's in one.   Don't define the tech or specifics as has been done with bounties to the point, just define the outcome you want and let the market participants self organize into the winning combination.'
  +5%

How will you distribute this bounty?

Here is an idea. Award the bounty according to the stake proportion shareholders have in the winning DAC. Since none of us would know which DAC would be the winning DAC you'd end up with a lottery effect where we buy shares in the DACs we think will be the winning DAC.

So if for example you make a DAC, now I'll buy shares in your DAC and will work hard to help your DAC be successfully profitable so that we all can have the award distributed in proportion to the amount of shares we own in your DAC. If I own a lot of shares in your DAC then I'd of course deserve most of the credit for the success if your DAC wins the award.

The same way Angelshares were mapped to PTS, Angelshares could be mapped to the shares of your DAC. The shareholders of the winning DAC would wake up one day to find that their shares have inherited an award of bonus Angelshares mapped to their shares in some proportional ratio. In the future the businesses in the ecosystem could sweeten the pot by adding shares of their own to the award pool.

Simply put, I support the idea of having a bounty for this. I just think the bounty shouldn't go to individuals but should be distributed proportionally to the winning shareholders because that is a way to get people to buy shares in hopes of winning the Angelshare bonus (or whatever future reward bonuses that go beyond this), it also would make people work really hard to make the DACs profitable to win the shareholder bonuses.

Nothing would stop us down the road if multiple DACs are successful from pooling the awards in such a way that the pot gets sweeter for DACs that come along later. Maybe instead of just winning Angelshares maybe the DACs of 2015 could win Awardshares in different DACs according to the innovation or technical problems they solve for the ecosystem.

The Awardshares would be used as an incentive to drive innovation and we could have a top 5 list with the top 5 DACs in some category all winning some awards.

Awardshares would function like bonuses or higher salaries for all participants. This would encourage everyone to participate in making DACs a success because eventually the potential for Awardshares would be so huge that everyone would want to get involved.

The social contract says 10% for Angelshares and 10% for Protoshares. That would mean 80% remains. If 10% were to be for Awardshares then the DAC creators could award these shares at their discretion to other DACs provided that criteria is put in place, voted on democratically by the community, and that the shares are held in some sort of escrow so that once the community votes on the winners the shares are automatically distributed without much human involvement. It should be automatic that the winning DAC gets the Awardshares held in the pool, escrow, or whatever.

And

Lots of good ideas being generated in multiple threads right now.. Anyone want to curate?

* move % of angel funds to community multi-sig
* offer bounty for first non-I3 DAC

I think instead of just thinking about "Angelfunds" we should just develop Awardshares as an idea. Let it be a community controlled pool via multi-sig. We vote on the winner to receive the Awardshares. The Awardshares could include any cryptoassets we put into the pool but primarily at this time it should be Angelshares. This way there is flexibility so that in the future should some DACs have shares which a lot of people want or which can be used as an incentive we could put them in the pool.

Awardshares would allow any current or future DAC creator to feed some of their valuable shares into a community controlled pool. Then you would have a list of DACs and a PoS voting system so that the community can vote on the winner. Some criteria should be something which is automatic and which cannot be disputed.

So whether or not a DAC is profitable is not something we should vote on. We should try to find some technical means of measuring the profitability of a DAC and then turn that into a data feed which produces a true or false or a number in the form of a percent. Then the DACs with the highest percent should rise to the top of the list. So the data set could be the top 5 most profitable DACs of 2015, and then let people vote on which DAC is their favorite and speculate by prediction markets which DACs will win the battle of the DACs or the DAC of the year award.

This way you get PoS shareholder feedback, but you also get some data from a data feed which needs no voting. The real question is how to measure profitability? We could make Coinmarketcap and several sites like it a data feed but is that really the right way to go about it?

If consensus can be reached on what is the most profitable, and on what success is, yet there is room for preference to be included, I think it will work great.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 01:51:54 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2014, 02:29:11 am »
Quote
Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

Quote
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2014, 03:54:27 am »
Quote
Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

Quote
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

You will find the requested response here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039

We think about this stuff 24x7.  We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors.  This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum.  I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following.  Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false.  How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained?  But I'll try once again...

Quote
The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   

No.  As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again.  I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039  Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.

Quote
What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.   :)

Quote
You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.

We plan to fund the best DACs we can find.  We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list.  We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately.  The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally.  Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.

Quote
Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

No, we are operating in the role of an honest-broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit.  The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus.  We merely offered to manage those funds for the community.  We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.

Quote
So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.

We have always said we are bootstrapping a community.  Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day.  That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing.  As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?



« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 12:07:00 am 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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2014, 04:50:22 am »
Quote
Most AGS members became that way for one reason:  they trust bytemaster's judgement in evaluating the potential and viability of DACs to be funded.  How would they feel if he turned that duty over to the judgement of others?

I did it for the 2.5x Bitshares, and I did it despite my growing concerns about Daniels judgement.  I did not realize donating funds to Angelshares meant that Daniel would be king, I thought this was the most transparent and collaborative community built company but I may have misunderstood the material.

The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.   You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.   Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!   So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system...................

Ignoring the problem has just made the wound fester, I approached you guys quietly about these basic basic issues for months and months, and nothing ever changed.   

Quote
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result

I'm crazy, but I'm not insane.  Please address the 10,000 PTS for 3rd party DAC that meets criteria set by Invictus and the community, please do it in the thread responding to my proposal.  I've devoted quite a bit of time and attention to the things I feel are important to rectify about the project we're all invested in, and I would appreciate a small amount of your very valuable time.

You will find the requested response here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039

We think about this stuff 24x7.  We are balancing many Global Optimization Factors.  This means that every single factor will be sub-optimum so that the Global Whole will be the best we can make it. You specialize in pointing out how individual factors are sub-optimum.  I'm a system's engineer and program manager with 38 years of experience who has published a detailed summary of our optimization criteria and strategy for achieving a globally optimum solution here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988

I begin to despair when I see quotes like the following.  Each statement is obviously unfair and blatantly false.  How can I say anything more that we haven't already explained?  But I'll try once again...

Quote
The only reason there is a dip in the price of PTS is because Invictus has failed to explain their plan for incentivizing other DAC creating companies to follow their model.   

No.  As we explained in "Watch for Falling PTS" the price changed because the value was split between two chains that will now grow and divide again and again.  I offered a comprehensive "Shark Tank" plan for incentivizing other DAC developers as the Featured Article in our February newsletter as highlighted and explained here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3363.msg43039#msg43039  Incentivizing and training DAC developers is the whole point of our Beyond Bitcoin Summit in July.
Why is it only possible for one dac to be in development on the chain at a time?  As I've described, you can set up clear incentives to get other companies to participate and build in your ecosystem instead of choosing a competing one or starting their own.  The lack of activity in this sector and the failure to explain the value to Memorycoin (your own contractor) and Barwizi (who wrote much of your social contracts and himself did not see the value) is why there are no other DACs announced in development for Protoshares, and it's the reason why there appears to be no reason for the market to hold.    You're saying it doesn't matter and I agree with you in the long term, but it's also completely unnneccesary AND a demonstration that you have so far failed to attract development talent that has been very interested in working with you.   It's great you have a conference in summer, I hope Let's Talk Bitcoin! will be a part of it, but you are holding development of your ecosystem hostage on these arbitrary future dates.    Do you not agree that setting up outcome based bounties would give non-invictus teams an incentive to start long term projects.  That is not true about some future shark tank panel that happens at a conference that some fraction of the potentially interested people attend.     
Quote
Quote
What we have witnessed was two attempts which didn't see the value you claim is there and so allocated only a tenth of what the "invisible hand social contract" mandated.  That wasn't because they can't do math, but rather there is no obvious value in working with you.

Let's wait and see how well they do compared to those that honor this community.  Of course, if the community doesn't favor DACs that honor them and shun those who don't, we will be proven wrong.  We don't exactly have a scientifically large sample yet.   :)

Quote
You say it's the community, seems to me you're holding it hostage.

We plan to fund the best DACs we can find.  We have announced a half dozen that are at the top of our list.  We will not insert a lesser DAC in front of the line, but a better 3rd Party idea will be placed there immediately.  The only reason they are not executing yet is the lack of a qualified proposal to develop one of them or qualified staff to do it internally.  Again, the whole point of the Shark Tank contest and the Beyond Bitcoin Summit is to recruit developers.
Daniel has said that only Music is even on the table for 2014 and realistically 2015.  Why do you want to pay people for work they haven't done?  A bounty program, properly promoted solves your problems without Invictus needing to be right about everything.  To this point you guys have been wrong about more things than you've been right about so I'm a little unclear why you think there is this aura of trust going on here.  There isn't. 
Quote
Quote
Every DAC that gets created that honors protoshares will pay the LARGEST portion to you!

No, we are operating in the role of an honest broker community-building "foundation" until the formal legal structures can be set up to make that role explicit.  The portion you refer to goes to developing the community, not Invictus.  We merely offered to manage those funds for the community.  We encourage other people to make similar offers and compete with us for that position of trust.
I believe the community should represent the community, and invictus should propose non-standard or new expenditures.  You guys break the rules whenever you want, so you shouldn't be in charge of the rules for so much value intended to build this ecosystem. 
Quote
Quote
So Protoshares truly are the gift that keeps on giving for invictus, and yet we're getting close to the part where I get that queasy ripple feeling in  my stomach where the private company holds most of the tokens because they set up perverse incentives and have no accountability within the system.

We have always said we are bootstrapping a community.  Our books are open to the point where we get asked about individual expenditures every day.  That's the best accountability we know how to do. Those tokens are being recirculated into the community to fund development and marketing.  As to whether the industry thinks the incentives to contribute to building the industry are "perverse" or not, people have been voting for them with real money for 65 days, have they not?
5 year Bounty program.   Seriously.  You can do your shark tank thing too but asking everyone to go through you in some sort of gameshow esque vetting process means you'll only get people who are willing to make a spectacle of themselves and have the possibility of public rejection.  Not everybody wants to open the kimono before they've built the thing, you ask them to bear their soul or receive no reward at all.   Set up the roadmap you think things should go or the community can do this, but really this is where Daniels long term vision would be useful rather than judging individual business models.   You guys have been bad caretakers of investor trust, outcome based bounties preferably with keys controlled by the community would be a good way to restore it.   

Don't give up Stan, you've made like ten posts to me and I've made dozens and dozens to you.  If anyone should give up it's me, but I'm still here.  Why?  Because I like you.  You guys have a good idea, and I hate seeing smart people do things like this.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 12:10:43 am by Stan »
Email me at [email protected]

Offline AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2014, 05:04:46 am »
Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.
Email me at [email protected]

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2014, 05:39:30 am »
Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development

In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.

 :)

And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs.  A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.

We are looking to kill many birds with each stone.  Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. 

Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors.  Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.

Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. 

Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July?  That's a lifetime in this industry.  So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.

There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.

If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.












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 AdamBLevine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
    • Let's Talk Bitcoin!
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2014, 05:55:18 am »
Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development

In the end, I guess it comes down to a choice of which end of the rainbow we should put the pot of gold.

 :)

And then there's the buzz and excitement of a contest that pays off in July, right in front of a studio audience that has just been trained in how to evaluate and create good DACs.  A chance to apply what they have learned and see how others have approached the problem the day after they take the class.

We are looking to kill many birds with each stone.  Its all part of an integrated push by every member of our team in every department and has built in community involvement at every stage. 

Not only that, but even the "losers" win, because they will become well known in the process and may get help from other attending investors.  Those who watch talent search shows know that most of the finalists get a big career boost from a public competition with judges and instant gratification.

Of course all of this hinges on whether there are enough simultaneously-appearing quality contestants to make the concept work. 

Also, if there's an obviously qualified developer ready to go with a great DAC idea, do we really want to make her wait until July?  That's a lifetime in this industry.  So the competition idea is really a wild-card second-chance opportunity for candidates that don't get funded on the spot.

There is much to ponder and as we said in the newsletter, we welcome civil comments and want to hear if there are actually any interested contestants for either of the approaches on the table.

If you want to compete for a post-development demonstrated-success prize, let us know.
If you want to compete for a pre-development demonstrated-potential stipend, let us know.


When I get time over the next few days I'll lay out how I feel 25-50% of AGS funds received so far should be committed to long term bounties.   I also feel the keys need to not be reliant on Invictus to manage for the full amount of funds, it's too much trust centered on a company that has unproven and provocative legal footing.  I would suggest a large community M of N, and I would be happy to serve as a key holder.

I have no problem with you doing the shark tank thing, spectacle is fine.   We have a problem if it is shark tank to the exclusion of long term, large, and predictable bounties as I've been describing.  I look forward to your feedback on the proposal, I intend to make it very general with the intention of incentivizing as much innovation and experimentation as possible to center of the Invictus platform rather than choosing another.   People who want up front development funds can go through the Invictus shark tank process.

Also, with regards to your "send us comments", you realize you're publishing that on page 3 or 4 of a unrelated thread on the invictus development forum?   The people you want to incentivize aren't here.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:30:08 am by AdamBLevine »
Email me at [email protected]

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Re: DACIndex.com now live
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2014, 05:57:35 am »
Seriously, just incentivize the market to duke it out for the big prizes you set up to give to the winner.  If you try to pick winning projects now YOU WILL BE WRONG but if you just say "Whoever is the most successful Invictus DAC as judged by profitability for the token holders in one year gets <big pile of money>", do the same thing again in year two but the guy who won last year can't win this year.   

Don't predict outcomes, reward them.  The market will solve your problem and you'll only pay for the best solution.

Bounties to this point have been specific and task oriented, outsourced R&D really.   This is different.

It's an intriguing concept worthy of consideration.  Perhaps we can do both.

Our view was that deploying a successful DAC was its own reward.  Plenty of motivation at that end of the rainbow already.

We figured what got in the way for people was lack of support funding when they really need it - before the DAC is developed.  Our shark tank variant lets the little guy invest just enough to write a convincing proposal.  If the angels and judges (not just Dan) like that proposal best, then the little guy gets all kinds of help while he is doing the development

One point I will make, if you reward the winning DAC with Angelshares then it increases the chances that they'll honor the social contract at least in theory.

My opinion is we should have Awardshares and fill the jackpot with all sorts of shares in different stuff so that the winners win an equity slice in the whole ecosystem and not just Invictus products. Maybe early DACs could get awarded a larger slice?

It also would mean the community should get a vote. Perhaps based upon criteria like how many shares you own in the businesses or DACs offering the reward. So if I don't own any shares in Adam's DAC then I shouldn't get to vote alongside his DAC but since I would own Angelshares I should get to vote there. Contributing DACs could have voting rights, that is what I propose.



« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:05:22 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads