Author Topic: Market Report  (Read 10544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12912
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Market Report
« Reply #105 on: September 09, 2014, 07:41:56 am »
let's see the details once cob reveals them
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #106 on: September 09, 2014, 08:11:20 am »
I promised to share my thoughts on the market when I have one. Well today I do.

The topic is:
 
'BitShares Music'
Short Version:

Sell, sell, sell... whenever you get your hands on any bishashares Music shares (called Notes) sell. At whatever price the poor buyer is offering; do not give him a chance to think twice!

Compared to bitMusic Notes, LTBcoin is a stroke of genius!




Long  Version:

-Totally screwed or laughable IPO, depending on your point of view.

Let’s not talk about PTS/AGS holders – getting in 30 % of a worthless product is not much better than getting just 10%, I know getting 10% is insulting nevertheless.
The IPO is designed to follow all well-known path of ‘crypto space’ stupidity –Ethereum style, or ‘known number unknown quantity’ style IPO. In short you pay $5 for X number of shares, but you are totally unaware how many shares will be sold. With every passing day the new buyer get less number of shares per $5 but at least know how many other crazies have bought before them.  The total number of crazies still remains unknown, as there may be many more coming after them.
If this is not enough, the wise DAC creators/founders not just keep the proceeds of the ipo, they also reward themselves with free shares (about 30% of the total DAC’s shares, never the less!)



-Suspicious business model and incentive structure.

      -Well the IPO was the fun part, there the creators of this DAC just rob you in bright daylight and that is in a way honorable of them.
While they thought hard for their 30-35% free notes, in the business model we see that those Notes are not worth much. They entitle you to transactions fees… and that is pretty much it (well other than being a speculator and shorting musicUSDs at their own eXchange)
The other way to make money in this system are the following:
      – You lend money to a promising musician, he promises to give you something back (or not) if he is a success. Way to enforce such promises are something that the ‘founders’ will have to think of… but that is for later.
     -The 3rd way the system makes money is buy selling music- on $1 dollar sales here are the proposed ratios:
95% for the musician;
4% for the ‘founders’ ???? (as they have expenses for bandwidth, etc.)
1% transaction fees…



But at least bitMusic will have in house exchange, rivaling the complexity of BTSX. Do not ask me why - the answer of course is -Because they can!
Agree on the IPO model. It has the downside of not knowing what you will get / at which market cap you buy in. Instead an ASG style fundraiser or normal bank style IPOs would make sense. For the latter you would have to valuate the company / nodes beforehand.

As for the 10%. That could have been more I agree. But no reason to act against the DAC or refuse it! Be grateful for what you get! No one has to honor anything. Its all a free market. If you think 10% is too low create or help create a competitor that honors more. All voluntary.

As for why nodes should be worth s.t.:
- Two types of tx fees: Normal transaction processing fees and a higher fee for buying music.
- You need bitUSD backed by nodes to buy music (whether creating an own bitUSD market on that chain is advisable I dont know).

If you criticize someone you should be able to say how you would make it better. What would be your business / monetization model?

Oh, my model? It will be the same.

-I will give myself 35% of all shares - as you all know I am 'the best marketer and financial mind around'.

-I will get the shadiest of shady IPOs to get as much money as I can get.("Jump in the pool with a number in your hand", is a pretty good model I think...  -aka 'Who the fuck cares what one is getting for his money")
-Then I will tell all PTS/AGS holders that they are better off with 2% in trillion dollar DAC than with 30% in a worthless one. After taking  their stake, I will just make another IPO to sell 65% of those, and will keep 35% for myself (myself aka the best thing in finance and marketing after...)


Then I will make an exchange on my DAC, and will secure the bitMusicUSD with the shares I have accrued above. Each  bitMusicUSD  will be backed by some of my (free Notes). The good part (amongst others) is that no other shorter can compete with me - after all I have 70% of the Notes, and I got them for...free.

Should I go on....



Or we can wait 2 weeks/months, for the cobs latest twist, as the more optimistic of us suggest...
let's see the details once cob reveals them
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 08:12:59 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12912
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Market Report
« Reply #107 on: September 09, 2014, 08:32:51 am »
:-)
<- naive guy
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #108 on: September 09, 2014, 08:46:03 am »
tony it is very entertaining to read you sarcastic posts (not kidding) but it would give your critique more weight if you can come up with an alternative plan...

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12912
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Market Report
« Reply #109 on: September 09, 2014, 08:54:04 am »
tony it is very entertaining to read you sarcastic posts (not kidding) but it would give your critique more weight if you can come up with an alternative plan...
+5%

constructive critique > sarcasm (although more entertaining :) )
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Re: Market Report
« Reply #110 on: September 09, 2014, 09:43:16 am »
tony it is very entertaining to read you sarcastic posts (not kidding) but it would give your critique more weight if you can come up with an alternative plan...

if I see a ugly woman and I share my thoughts with my brother, it doesn't mean she isn't ugly
because I didn't advised her to choose the right face lifter..




PS If she thinks she is beautiful, everything else doesn't matter    ;D

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Re: Market Report
« Reply #111 on: September 09, 2014, 11:11:04 am »
Sometimes your creativity is downright brutal liondani.

I hope cob and crew gives the community some time to critique the plan before they make it final.. If a genius like bytemaster believes in full transparency and constantly getting people to attack his thoughts and plans, .. how arrogant do other people have to be if they believe they can get it right from the get-go? In all probability it is motivated as much by fear as arrogance.

We should observe not so much what their initial plan is, but how they respond and handle valid criticism. Wasnn't this a lesson from Shark Tank as well? But let us wait until we get something official! :)

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #112 on: September 09, 2014, 12:19:50 pm »
But let us wait until we get something official! :)

Wise advice!

1) I think though it's kind of weird investors will put money in "notes" instead of investing in equity of the DAC.

2) The fact that 30% of all the notes will be hoarded by the centralized corporation behind it (and its founders), is kind of weird also. Let's say the DAC is worth 100 000 000$ at some point... The founders' stake will be worth 5M$ for a few months worth of work? Also they will get paid by the corporation running the whole thing (cumulating tx fees), and the corporation stake will be 25M$? (and it would be safe to assume the corporation behind it is owned and controlled by the founders). I might be wrong, but this scheme is created in a way that money will flow mostly in one direction: The founders.

I do understand the capitalism principle, and it seems very well applied here.

I might be wrong (and I really hope I am)

Investors will probably make a nice profit out of it, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. But it's a leap of faith, as they don't have any idea how many notes their investment entitle them to (as a percentage of the total investor's allowance).

One thing for sure, is that no matter how much the music DAC is worth (even just a few millions in market cap), a few stake holders (founders) will make a fortune. I guess that's the whole point of this scheme?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 12:21:57 pm by Chuckone »

Offline fuzzy

Re: Market Report
« Reply #113 on: September 09, 2014, 12:55:24 pm »
But let us wait until we get something official! :)

Wise advice!

1) I think though it's kind of weird investors will put money in "notes" instead of investing in equity of the DAC.

2) The fact that 30% of all the notes will be hoarded by the centralized corporation behind it (and its founders), is kind of weird also. Let's say the DAC is worth 100 000 000$ at some point... The founders' stake will be worth 5M$ for a few months worth of work? Also they will get paid by the corporation running the whole thing (cumulating tx fees), and the corporation stake will be 25M$? (and it would be safe to assume the corporation behind it is owned and controlled by the founders). I might be wrong, but this scheme is created in a way that money will flow mostly in one direction: The founders.

I do understand the capitalism principle, and it seems very well applied here.

I might be wrong (and I really hope I am)

Investors will probably make a nice profit out of it, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. But it's a leap of faith, as they don't have any idea how many notes their investment entitle them to (as a percentage of the total investor's allowance).

One thing for sure, is that no matter how much the music DAC is worth (even just a few millions in market cap), a few stake holders (founders) will make a fortune. I guess that's the whole point of this scheme?

Ug...this isn't a scheme and although I am not a fan of Ethereum itself the way they funded it was pretty damn well thought out.  AGS, too, was very well thought out.  As far as DACs having a core group with vested interest in it...that is not necessarily bad.  Some people "hoard" what they think is valuable while others sell what they think is going to lose value.  Please relax a bit on this "hoarding" stuff Chuck...we can go the complete opposite direction and complain about Pump and Dumps for the thousands of worthless altcoins each day, mined into existence and pumped onto newbies to syphon their hard earned Satoshis.

The wonderful thing about bitshares PTS is that YOU can go buy them and get a stake in all of these.  Yeh, sure, the early adopters who took the risk will likely have a cheaper price in that stake than you, but I am sure you have a cheaper stake in other projects than others.  Does that make it unfair?  Or does it mean I didn't research enough to find those gems before they began to truly shine? 

These are things worth considering.  At risk of sounding like i'm kissing ass, Bytemaster and the I3 team--though not perfect--have always done their best to be open about the project, plans and the rollout.  We are all wading in waters no human has ever seen before much less jumped into.  Yet here we all are...so early in the game.  Let's be happy about this fact and realize that there is literally a multitrillion dollar market out there for crypto once it reaches full adoption.  It is a good idea to have a huge number of DACs that clone each other, offering competitive market alternatives and distribution models. 

I am not for the one chain to rule them all concept, so I really like the idea of all systems that invite clones to compete with each other.  This is especially true when talking about the long term value PTS brings to the equation.  It is the lowest risk asset that will pay dividends in new companies that use the toolkit.  How much better (and fairer) can that "scheme" be?  Certainly more "noob" friendly than Bitcoin...and certainly more ethical than a bunch of miners mining "shit"coins, flipping them to Bitcoin holders and exiting stage left.

If I were new to crypto--I'd want to own 50% BTC and 50% PTS because PTS diversifies me automatically just as a reward for holding it.  That seems to be what dan and the team always do...ironically.   Make sure those who hold the tokens they create have an element that gives back as much value as possible to the holders.   
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 01:00:15 pm by theFuzz »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Riverhead

Re: Market Report
« Reply #114 on: September 09, 2014, 12:59:31 pm »
Typically when a company's executives own a large portion of their own shares it's considered a good thing. If the founders truly believe this to be a billion dollar DAC I imagine it will take years to get there so a quick deploy, dump, and run seems unlikely.


I'm willing to see this out. Bytemaster and Stan haven't raised any flags yet but as they've met with the founders it'd be interesting to hear their perspective on the plan.

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #115 on: September 09, 2014, 01:22:21 pm »
But let us wait until we get something official! :)

Wise advice!

1) I think though it's kind of weird investors will put money in "notes" instead of investing in equity of the DAC.

2) The fact that 30% of all the notes will be hoarded by the centralized corporation behind it (and its founders), is kind of weird also. Let's say the DAC is worth 100 000 000$ at some point... The founders' stake will be worth 5M$ for a few months worth of work? Also they will get paid by the corporation running the whole thing (cumulating tx fees), and the corporation stake will be 25M$? (and it would be safe to assume the corporation behind it is owned and controlled by the founders). I might be wrong, but this scheme is created in a way that money will flow mostly in one direction: The founders.

I do understand the capitalism principle, and it seems very well applied here.

I might be wrong (and I really hope I am)

Investors will probably make a nice profit out of it, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. But it's a leap of faith, as they don't have any idea how many notes their investment entitle them to (as a percentage of the total investor's allowance).

One thing for sure, is that no matter how much the music DAC is worth (even just a few millions in market cap), a few stake holders (founders) will make a fortune. I guess that's the whole point of this scheme?

Ug...this isn't a scheme and although I am not a fan of Ethereum itself the way they funded it was pretty damn well thought out.  AGS, too, was very well thought out.  As far as DACs having a core group with vested interest in it...that is not necessarily bad.  Some people "hoard" what they think is valuable while others sell what they think is going to lose value.  Please relax a bit on this "hoarding" stuff Chuck...we can go the complete opposite direction and complain about Pump and Dumps for the thousands of worthless altcoins each day, mined into existence and pumped onto newbies to syphon their hard earned Satoshis.

The wonderful thing about bitshares PTS is that YOU can go buy them and get a stake in all of these.  Yeh, sure, the early adopters who took the risk will likely have a cheaper price in that stake than you, but I am sure you have a cheaper stake in other projects than others.  Does that make it unfair?  Or does it mean I didn't research enough to find those gems before they began to truly shine? 

These are things worth considering.  At risk of sounding like i'm kissing ass, Bytemaster and the I3 team--though not perfect--have always done their best to be open about the project, plans and the rollout.  We are all wading in waters no human has ever seen before much less jumped into.  Yet here we all are...so early in the game.  Let's be happy about this fact and realize that there is literally a multitrillion dollar market out there for crypto once it reaches full adoption.  It is a good idea to have a huge number of DACs that clone each other, offering competitive market alternatives and distribution models. 

I am not for the one chain to rule them all concept, so I really like the idea of all systems that invite clones to compete with each other.  This is especially true when talking about the long term value PTS brings to the equation.  It is the lowest risk asset that will pay dividends in new companies that use the toolkit.  How much better (and fairer) can that "scheme" be?  Certainly more "noob" friendly than Bitcoin...and certainly more ethical than a bunch of miners mining "shit"coins, flipping them to Bitcoin holders and exiting stage left.

I understand your point!

Honestly, I really like the concept of PTS/AGS created by I3, and I'm all in for competition between DACs with varying business models, all using the same platform. I've always respected the open-minded community that take into account valuable opinions as well as the transparency of the developpers.

I'm just not agreeing on the distribution of this DAC in particular. I'm not even saying I would prefer more for PTS/AGS, because it respects the consensus of 10%/10% and I'm perfectly happy with this. As a passive investor, I don't expect to get a big piece of the cake, I'm very happy just to be able to participate in this experiment. I'm just saying that as it is, the communications for this DAC are kind of shady and open for interpretation (interpreting is exactly what I'm doing right now), and compared to the other DACs that are currently online (or going to be), there's a lot of the "equity" that will be flowing in the direction of the founders/centralized corporation. Either they hoard those notes or they spend it, I don't care, but I'm not comfortable with the fact that approximately  30% of the total equity is in very few hands, pretty much like all the other premined altcoins (and I also include Bitcoin in that statement). 

There will always be an early adopter's advantage, I agree with that. And those working to get any DAC online should be rewarded for their effort and the risk associated (if they did put their assets/ass on the line).

Anyway, the whole point is simply to say that I disagree with the distribution as it currently is, and also that the communication with the community is lacking (to make things short).

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Re: Market Report
« Reply #116 on: September 09, 2014, 02:11:58 pm »
I don't think anybody has talked about the latest/best notes model. I'm talking to eddie and cob about this.
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.

jaran

  • Guest
Re: Market Report
« Reply #117 on: September 09, 2014, 02:40:32 pm »
Instead of so much going to the private corporation PeerTracks maybe those shares could go to the DAC to be used to give say 100 top artist a stake in the DAC if they agree to use it and promote it.



 

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #118 on: September 09, 2014, 05:13:21 pm »
tony it is very entertaining to read you sarcastic posts (not kidding) but it would give your critique more weight if you can come up with an alternative plan...

Removing the stupid  and or greedy parts of the plan will be a start.
1. If you want to give just 20% to AGS/PTS, fine, it your right. (The useless bastards are not a good marketing group anyway, why give them more).

2.If you think IPO is the best way to go - fine;
-Make a model that makes sense ('Here investor buy some notes', 'What PERCENT will 100 BTC buy me?' -'Well we do not know, but definitely 5Mil shares" - Does, not cut it! )
AGS style is a good start. Improve on it!
-Buy as much as you want through that IPO

3. Want a stability of a dollar, in the payments in the system? - Good - Make a gateway on BTSX exchange, to make trading Notes for bitUSD. (Building your own exchange for that purpose - Wistful overkill). You can have automatic Note<--> bitUSD on your site for the customer convenience if you would like.

4. Having 5% fee of every sell (for the bandwidth???, how did you calculate it will be enough?), in current form it just smells money grab, money grab. My solution leave 25% as delegate fee. Let the delegates/Note-holders decide what is a good split bandwidth/Profit (Burning)/Marketing etc. You will run quite a few of them delegates anyway.


That's me thinking 15min on the subject.
For 9 mo. the 'FOUNDERS" came with nothing but schemes to get bigger part of the pie for themselves.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Re: Market Report
« Reply #119 on: September 09, 2014, 09:34:32 pm »

For 9 mo. the 'FOUNDERS" came with nothing but schemes to get bigger part of the pie for themselves.

Hopefully, it will turn out that they've been quite busy behind the scenes. Personally, I've always been more excited about BitShares Music than any other DAC. It could be the first DAC (aside from BTSX) to present something new to a potentially mass audience that doesn't know or care what a DAC is. Like others, I've been eagerly awaiting details. Until we get an official announcement, I think we shouldn't be jumping to too many conclusions. So far, I'll agree with you, Tony, that the IPO idea rubs me the wrong way, after all the money I've spent on AGS and PTS. There was a time when we were promised 50% of this DAC. That sort of promise, when people are spending money in anticipation of it, is important. BitShares Music or PeerTracks will not get another dime from me in its IPO. I've bought in heavily already, even if it's now a share of 20% and not 50%.

However, I remain very optimistic about BitShares Music. Maybe I don't need a share of 50%. If I own only some small fraction of 1%, then who knows, that could be worth a fortune. And the IPO could turn out to be a positive if that gives this business the resources to succeed. I'll be patient and see how this develops.

One more thing to consider: in this open source world, a DAC may need an IPO or fundraiser to cement its first-mover advantage. If a developer has blown his wad just to get the thing off the ground, and then someone else with more resources comes in and clones the thing right away, able to pour those resources into the next stage, then that first effort is at least partly wasted. But a first-mover with a big war chest can make it a lot harder for someone else to swoop in and compete at the same level. This helps to incentivize DAC development. Also, I have to guess that running BitShares Music will not be a low-maintenance operation. So I don't mind funding that to some degree.