I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that ![Hi, apparently this text is editable. :)](http://bitsharestalk.org/Smileys/aaron/smiley.gif)
Adam, I have greatly valued your amazing contributions to the cryptocurrency movement. I feel that I have also made significant contributions in my own way (for instance, being the first large donor to Armory so that Alan could quit his day job and give full time to its development - long before his round of Angel funding where Trace Mayer and others got in on expectation of personal gain).
LetsTalkBitcoin is a cornerstone in my opinion, and brought me to bitshares.
Now comes the "however" (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?)
You edited the post that I responded to
after my response.
I responded as I did, despite misgivings, because you are a VIP and very influential in the community. I therefore attempted to generate some consensus and mollify you as I was able.
But now I no longer think that I understand your point of view or motivation. I am finding Stan's responses on your other (related) thread to be thoughtful and convincing and valid attempts to answer your concerns - though obviously not what you want to hear. Have you acquired a pre-conceived notion of how it should be with the result that you don't hear responses that don't fit your formula?
By editing your post after I had responded, it looks as if I am agreeing to it in its entirety. That is not true.
I think that your contest has merits, but I think contestants for the prize should be limited to those who honor both PTS and AGS holders with minimum 10% Otherwise, let those who want to contribute to a prize for this contest do so.
I wasn't deceived when I donated my PTS and BTC to angelshares. Are you thinking that you were?