You should read this

[bytemaster]

Let's be fair though, when have shares ever been given away for free for any company? They shouldn't be, they can only be traded.

I use to be very hard-over on this perspective, but then I remembered that the 'founders' of a company always got their shares for 'free'.   Bootstrapping a decentralized company requires a large number of initial shareholders.    The idea of airdropping to create a wide initial user base is a great way to form an initial partnership. 

However, if you have investors fund the development of a company then of course they should receive more than the airdrop users get for free.

[toast]

The idea I put forth at least required they mine for it.

NO NO NO, mining is *WORSE* than doing nothing. It is harmful!

[gamey]

What is the point? It seems almost like a tax and it makes no sense.

There is no reason to dilute the shares just because Bitcoin dilutes its shares due to Proof of Work.

There should be ways for people to earn a stake, but don't give it away for free and if you are going to give it away for free there are Proof of Stake coins which are far more decentralized.

Let's be fair though, when have shares ever been given away for free for any company? They shouldn't be, they can only be traded.

I've noticed that most people who hate taxes/welfare etc are mostly upset that others get something free that they worked hard for.

You are putting words in my mouth all over the place.  I never said we do this because Bitcoin dilutes its shares. 

I said we do it to increase adoption and interest in the Bitshares system as a whole.  <- This is true, longterm I am not sure what to think.

I seriously doubt there would be any POS coin as decentralized as BTC.  At least not in # of active wallets.

These types of airdrops seem to do quite a bit for the marketcap of altoins.  Airdropping on ~90% of your early market ! 

Again, people will not be coming out of fiat directly to bitshares.  So why not generate a huge amount of interest in bitshares with your early adopters ?

There are lots of valid arguments against my idea.  None of which are "don't do it because it is cool" or "people need to work for it".

[luckybit]

Why would it be a good idea to give Bitshares to people for nothing?

The idea I put forth at least required they mine for it. I don't see why it's suddenly cool to give Bitcoin owners something for nothing. Is it because the price went down?

It isn't cool, but it brings in a LOT of interest that was not there previously. 

I'd rather not dilute shares either, but I am just looking at it objectively.  My judgment may have be off, but I think the sum is greater than the parts.

Ethereum has done a great job marketing.  Everyone is all excited about it.  That is something that has value.  It is not a value I can calculate but oh boy does it exist !  The effect is huge on the longterm success of these projects.

Bringing in all the random people who have shown to have a interest in cryptocurrencies so much that they have their own wallet has a lot of benefits.

It might be a bad idea in the longterm.  I just think the more people who have a stake in something, the more interest they will have in future DACs.  You will have a lot more owners who will readily transition into users of the DACs.   Protoshares is pretty sci-fi.  The paradigm of shares vs coins is new to most.  You're not going to leapfrog past current crypto users to average joes, so bring them in now.  Lock in their interest.

I haven't thought about this a whole lot, and perhaps the shares would just tank on the market ... but I wanted to put my variation on the airdrop out there for possible inclusion/refinement.

What is the point? It seems almost like a tax and it makes no sense.

There is no reason to dilute the shares just because Bitcoin dilutes its shares due to Proof of Work.

There should be ways for people to earn a stake, but don't give it away for free and if you are going to give it away for free there are Proof of Stake coins which are far more decentralized.

Let's be fair though, when have shares ever been given away for free for any company? They shouldn't be, they can only be traded.

[gamey]

Why would it be a good idea to give Bitshares to people for nothing?

The idea I put forth at least required they mine for it. I don't see why it's suddenly cool to give Bitcoin owners something for nothing. Is it because the price went down?

It isn't cool, but it brings in a LOT of interest that was not there previously. 

I'd rather not dilute shares either, but I am just looking at it objectively.  My judgment may have be off, but I think the sum is greater than the parts.

Ethereum has done a great job marketing.  Everyone is all excited about it.  That is something that has value.  It is not a value I can calculate but oh boy does it exist !  The effect is huge on the longterm success of these projects.

Bringing in all the random people who have shown to have a interest in cryptocurrencies so much that they have their own wallet has a lot of benefits.

It might be a bad idea in the longterm.  I just think the more people who have a stake in something, the more interest they will have in future DACs.  You will have a lot more owners who will readily transition into users of the DACs.   Protoshares is pretty sci-fi.  The paradigm of shares vs coins is new to most.  You're not going to leapfrog past current crypto users to average joes, so bring them in now.  Lock in their interest.

I haven't thought about this a whole lot, and perhaps the shares would just tank on the market ... but I wanted to put my variation on the airdrop out there for possible inclusion/refinement.

[luckybit]

Why would it be a good idea to give Bitshares to people for nothing?

The idea I put forth at least required they mine for it. I don't see why it's suddenly cool to give Bitcoin owners something for nothing. Is it because the price went down?

[gamey]

I was thinking about writing up a large paper on this idea, but I think I'll sumarize the thoughts I've had.


If I was master of bitshares, I'd consider a new sharechain that consists of something like 50% airdrop, 50% bitshares family.

The shares do not need to come into existance all at once. 

For example, I decide to distribute as follows.

1/2 goes to bitshares family, of which (PTS?)
1/4 goes to BTS
1/4 goes to AGS

The other 1/2 goes to
1/4 BTC
1/8 LTC
1/8 DOGE

The first rollout would only create the BTC shares and BTS.   So 1/2 of the shares are in existence at rollout.  Then when AGS is available it would be added as would LTC and Doge.

Perhaps there are problems with secondary genesis blocks, but it seems doing the airdrop in stages might be feasible.  If not, then I'm not sure how to include AGS if you want first mover advantage.

Make a logarithmic multiplier so that the largest accounts are normalized.  Someone who understand logs better would have better ideas.  Cut off accounts that are dust transactions on the bottom end.  You could even out every account, but that is too easily abused and will alienate people with large amounts of capital.  The multiplier needs to be thought over, but should help decentralize ownership while not alienating those with large BTC holdings.

I would name the new branch BitChairs.  BTC3 for short. 

Think about it guys.  What you gain in 50% dilution will be made up with increased market penetration and interest.  I'd guess it would also increase odds of success immeasurably. 

[luckybit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

Basically the idea is to fork Ethereum and distribute it to BTC owners.

This is the same idea why I3 explain 3rd party dev should honor AGS/PTS: to maximize the user base. And if they don't want to, we fork it and do it anyway.

But BTC holders >>>> PTS/AGS holders. So basically I3 will loose that game.

Peter R's idea is genius. That will change the crypto landscape forever. Note that BTSX and any DAC that I3 will produce can be forked and be distributed to BTC holders. If I3 was right about user base = value, then that idea is a game changer for every body.

BTC is too centralized. The only motivation and outcome of this would be greed and centralization at the cost of innovation.

I'll go on record and say BTC owners getting everything is making BTC miners the central bank of crypto.

[santaclause102]

The Social consensus was proposed already when MMC launched I think. But everyone is free to follow it....

[onceuponatime]

Memorycoin did not follow the social consensus which I consider to be an inherent part of this forum and of the bitshares development. Therefore, I have made no effort at all to find out anything at all about it. THAT IS THEIR LOSS, as I am a generous supporter and investor. But I don't like getting screwed, and Memorycoin tried to screw those supporting the social consensus in full.

To be fair, Memorycoin was released before there was AGS or a social consensus. Memorycoin did not screw anyone, they paid 1% distribution for advertising

My apologies. I was thinking of Noirshares which didn't follow the social consensus.

I do think my point holds though. DACs which follow the social consensus get my attention.

[sschechter]

Memorycoin did not follow the social consensus which I consider to be an inherent part of this forum and of the bitshares development. Therefore, I have made no effort at all to find out anything at all about it. THAT IS THEIR LOSS, as I am a generous supporter and investor. But I don't like getting screwed, and Memorycoin tried to screw those supporting the social consensus in full.

To be fair, Memorycoin was released before there was AGS or a social consensus. Memorycoin did not screw anyone, they paid 1% distribution for advertising

[santaclause102]

I am a big supporter of the idea as you immediately have a bigger supporter base.
I would set time limits to claim your shares, like: Claim them in a month and you will get x, claim them within the following month and you get 1/2 of x. This creates a date that draws attention to Bitshares like the Bitshares Snaphot did otherwiese people will just say "I will try to understand Bitshares later as I can claim it anytime"... And as Sumantsu suggested I would finally limit the claiming period, see the other thread toast posted above.   
And I would do this with THE GOAL or THE FUNCTION in mind it is supposed to have, which is creating support and attention. Say 1% has half the effect that 5% has but it costs just 1/5... If you are giving away more than is necessary to support this function it is just wasted. The money could better be given to hiring more developers / a developer fund....

[onceuponatime]

What Memory coin did was really good. The $ amount that I received was ridiculous back then but... I learned how to claim my coins and learned more about the whole procedure. I was a completely newbie and learned how to claim my coins!!! That was amazing for me! Secondly I learned about memory coin. I read about it!!

Yeah that was an amazing campaign! Memorycoin now has the 72nd largest market cap with a value of $140 000! They built such a big following with that technique 

(Sorry it's not a bad point you're making, I'm feeling sarcastic today, personally I didn't claim my coins or do more than open their web page at the time, (I later bought MMC for a brief period because I learned about some of it's USP's on Bitcointalk, but had they given more than 1% yes it may have made a difference, also Bitshares X should have a decent starting market cap.)

Memorycoin did not follow the social consensus which I consider to be an inherent part of this forum and of the bitshares development. Therefore, I have made no effort at all to find out anything at all about it. THAT IS THEIR LOSS, as I am a generous supporter and investor. But I don't like getting screwed, and Memorycoin tried to screw those supporting the social consensus in full.

[sumantso]

It would be silly to give MtGox, or the CounterpartyXXXXXXX burn address, a bunch of BTS-X shares.

Actually giving it to the burn address just increases your BTS X value as it is effectively destroying the amount

[bitbadger]

I would be all for honoring BTC holders with 5% or even 10%.  I'd be willing to donate 5%.  Perhaps Invictus could agree to give 5% of their Bitshares?  I'm sure they're the largest holder.

However, I would want there to be a cap of some sort.  It would be silly to give MtGox, or the CounterpartyXXXXXXX burn address, a bunch of BTS-X shares.  Cap it at crediting, say, a maximum of 100 BTC per address.  I know this doesn't eliminate all BTC whales (most of whom likely have their coins spread across multiple addresses) but it does help somewhat.  You could also eliminate dust addresses; anything less than 0.0001 BTC doesn't get included.  This would be more of a practical matter to keep from having to add millions of worthless addresses to the Genesis block.