Author Topic: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC  (Read 10379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rysgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
    • DACZine.com
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #90 on: March 07, 2014, 09:09:45 pm »
There has been and there will be again in the future I'm sure.
DACZine.com - Receive all the latest DAC and BitShares community news straight to your inbox. Signup here or Submit news

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #91 on: March 07, 2014, 09:10:11 pm »
By advertising on LTB
Like Nxt? It's not good enough. We need personal interview with him.

Agreed. Every time the NXT update commercial comes on, my brain shuts off; its just not... captivating.  I'm really looking forward to the interviews coming out of the Texas conference.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #92 on: March 07, 2014, 11:01:52 pm »
I think Invictus already has shown they have more interesting and engaging people than NXT. I like NXT and I own some, but you are right that it is an example of how not to market; we don't even know who most of the NXT people are. Does Invictus need this bitter Adam guy in order to market its DAC? Absolutely not; there are other ways to promote a product than on one person's site. From what I've read, I'd steer well clear of working with him.

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #93 on: March 08, 2014, 03:42:57 am »
... this bitter Adam guy ... From what I've read, I'd steer well clear of working with him.

Links or it didn't happen. ;)

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #94 on: March 08, 2014, 04:05:51 pm »
I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.  Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys.  If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place.  Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.

There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it.  Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.

Offline bitcoinba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #95 on: March 08, 2014, 05:25:38 pm »
I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.  Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys.  If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place.  Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.

There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it.  Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.

 +5%

Offline wasthatawolf

Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #96 on: March 08, 2014, 05:29:51 pm »
I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem. 

This is exactly how I feel about how the argument in this post devolved. 

I think this is also relevant, from the Angelshares announcement post...

"What happens to all the donations?"

100% of the proceeds go to growing the crypto-equity industry. Zero percent  will be retained as profits Invictus.

Funds will be used to encourage new developers with salaries, grants, contracts, and bounties to build everything from small components to entire new DACs.  They will be used provide a free high-quality Developer's Toolkit giving DAC developers a huge head start.  They will be used for advertisements, conferences, promotions and give-aways to stimulate interest in the new industry and to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute.  They will be used for legal advocacy for the ecosystem in many jurisdictions.  Anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.

It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor our promises.  It is up to the market to reject this, or not.  If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy. 


Particularly...

(Angelshares will be used for) anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.

and

If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy. 


I think Adam just feels that trust was broken based on his many interactions and conversations with the Invictus staff.  He trusted Invictus to deliver a certain product within a certain timeframe and that hasn't materialized.  He's angry about that and it's obvious.  The personal attacks on Adam are completely unjustified because no one besides Adam and the staff at Invictus with whom he communicated know what was said in those conversations (unless they all occured on these forums of course).  Everyone really just needs to cool down because personal attacks get us nowhere.

When I first saw the Angelshares announcement, I'll admit I was annoyed because I felt it was diluting the value of the Protoshares I was holding.  But once I read through the announcement and stewed on it for a bit, I began to understand why it was necessary and that, in fact, it was a good thing. 

Based on the content of the announcement, I viewed it much like a Kickstarter where the reward you get for pledging your bitcoin or protoshares was a future stake, proportional to your pledge, in all the DACs created by Invictus or the community of developers they hoped to foster.

I still trust Invictus to deliver, much like I would trust a Kickstarter with a good product that misses their initial deadlines or has delays because they want to improve the product before it ships (if you've ever contributed to a Kickstarter, you know more often then not there are significant delays).  Let's remember that holders of Angelshares do not hold equity in Invictus itself, and while their suggestions may be valid, it is ultimately Invictus's decision to steer the company in the direction they see fit to reach their vision.

Don't forget, by the nature of their position, the staff at Invictus has a pretty big stake in making it sure it's successful.


Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #97 on: March 08, 2014, 05:32:25 pm »

I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.  Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys.  If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place.  Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.

There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it.  Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.

+1

ANGELshares.  I think it's important to uphold the perspective that AGS are voluntary angel investments because one believes in the future work of the Invictus team.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #98 on: March 08, 2014, 06:32:50 pm »

On Missing Deadlines

One of the most common (and valid) complaints about Invictus is our missed deadlines. (Alas, we've only managed to average about one major new milestone per month). I come from a program management background and I can tell you that I have learned from the School of Hard Knocks that missing deadlines is universally considered The Second Deadly Sin of program managers.  (The first being, of course, cost overruns!)

After 38 years in the business, I also know every program manager trick in the book.  (Having pulled them and having had them pulled on me.)

One of the best tricks is to keep two sets of schedules:  an aggressive internal one for the engineering team and a conservative one that you show your customers.  The art is to try to grow that buffer between the two, while using it to absorb unexpected delays which are sure to occur.  If you do it right (and are uncommonly lucky) your customers never see a slip.  You are viewed as a Good Program Manager.


Unfortunately, we decided at the beginning to be completely transparent to "our customers".  Therefore, we don't get to have two schedules.  If I tell you customers a particular conservative deadline, the engineering team will know about it subconsciously regardless of any more aggressive schedule I give them.  The only way to get the same kind of urgency for the team is to publish the aggressive schedule so they all know that we will be embarrassed when we miss it.  So we all work lots of overtime to avoid that embarrassment.

This gives me a choice:  conservative with less pressure or aggressive with more embarrassment.

I'm sure we all agree that we want to keep up the pressure!
So that inherently means we have to put up with more embarrassment too.

Welcome to the wonderful world of transparent development.
Watching sausage making is never pretty.
(But what a powerful advantage for diligent investors!)


« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 01:34:35 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 barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #99 on: March 08, 2014, 06:55:02 pm »


On Missing Deadlines

One of the most common (and valid) complaints about Invictus is our missed deadlines. (Alas, we've only managed to average about one major new milestone per month). I come from a program management background and I can tell you that I have learned from the School of Hard Knocks that missing deadlines is universally considered The Second Deadly Sin of program managers.  (The first being, of course, cost overruns!)

After 38 years in the business, I also know every program manager trick in the book.  (Having pulled them and having had them pulled on me.)

One of the best tricks is to keep two sets of schedules:  an aggressive internal one for the engineering team and a conservative one that you show your customers.  The art is to try to grow that buffer between the two, while using it to absorb unexpected delays which are sure to occur.  If you do it right (and are uncommonly lucky) your customers never see a slip.  You are viewed as a Good Program Manager.

Unfortunately, we decided at the beginning to be completely transparent to "our customers".  Therefore, we don't get to have two schedules.  If I tell you customers a particular conservative deadline, the engineering team will know about it subconsciously regardless of any more aggressive schedule I give them.  The only way to get the same kind of urgency for the team is to publish the aggressive schedule so they all know that we will be embarrassed when we miss it.  So we all work lots of overtime to avoid that embarrassment.

This gives me a choice:  conservative with less pressure or aggressive with more embarrassment.

I'm sure we all agree that we want to keep up the pressure!
So that inherently means we have to put up with more embarrassment too.

Welcome to the wonderful world of transparent development.
Watching sausage making is never pretty.
(But what a powerful advantage for diligent investors!)

Make them sausages 5 times faster!!!!!! we hungry!!!!

I'm tired of buying cheap PTS.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #100 on: March 08, 2014, 07:08:52 pm »
The integrity of invictus continues to shine though.  Let's try to show patience....the challenges are legion and the journey has only just begun.

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #101 on: March 09, 2014, 09:21:01 pm »

The integrity of invictus continues to shine though.  Let's try to show patience....the challenges are legion and the journey has only just begun.

Nicely stated.

Offline barwizi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Noirbits, NoirShares, NoirEx.....lol, noir anyone?
    • View Profile
    • Noirbitstalk.org
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #102 on: March 11, 2014, 12:18:34 pm »
10000 PTS bounty, i'll do the code for you and you can run it.
--Bar--  PiNEJGUv4AZVZkLuF6hV4xwbYTRp5etWWJ

The magical land of crypto, no freebies people.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: [Proposal] Bounty for First Third Party AGS/PTS Honoring DAC
« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2014, 04:34:57 pm »
So what I was getting at and I believe what Adam is getting at is something along the lines of this:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-decentralized-crowdfunding-platform-reshape-bitcoin-landscape/

Invictus has captured the PTS/BTC funds, but has FULL control over what gets funded. However I was hoping this would be a platform where if someone has an idea and the investors believe in it, they would be able to crowd fund it with the allocated funds represented by their AGS/PTS.

I do understand that's not how Invictus business model works. But it is food for thought.