Number of Bitshares X at launch

[toast]

Among those voting for only 4 million shares, can someone please explain your reasoning? What's the advantage in having so few shares? Frankly, I can't see any advantage, but would like to know your pov. 

People associate higher prices with success. Having less shares equals higher prices which can generate more media attention.

The reason to have a lot of shares at a low price is if you want more volume on a chain. There is a balance but because there can be many chains I don't see a reason to go with 1 billion shares. Something between 4 and 8 million shares makes sense because by the time it starts to get too expensive for most people there will be multiple chains anyway.

So it's really about how you want to be perceived and the potential for market cap. If we think the market cap could be in the trillions then having 100 billion or even 1 trillion shares would make sense. But I doubt any single chain would reach that point and the result is the shares will likely look like a penny stock and be laughed at by people with significant resources.


Honestly for something like this there is room for experimentation. Whatever the community decides for one chain can be changed up in future chains if the market doesn't respond well.

 

[luckybit]

Among those voting for only 4 million shares, can someone please explain your reasoning? What's the advantage in having so few shares? Frankly, I can't see any advantage, but would like to know your pov. 

People associate higher prices with success. Having less shares equals higher prices which can generate more media attention.

The reason to have a lot of shares at a low price is if you want more volume on a chain. There is a balance but because there can be many chains I don't see a reason to go with 1 billion shares. Something between 4 and 8 million shares makes sense because by the time it starts to get too expensive for most people there will be multiple chains anyway.

So it's really about how you want to be perceived and the potential for market cap. If we think the market cap could be in the trillions then having 100 billion or even 1 trillion shares would make sense. But I doubt any single chain would reach that point and the result is the shares will likely look like a penny stock and be laughed at by people with significant resources.

Honestly for something like this there is room for experimentation. Whatever the community decides for one chain can be changed up in future chains if the market doesn't respond well.

According to 3i statements, ags and  pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x  chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community

First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

What do you mean by future chains? a other DAC besides BTS X or you mean the future chains of BTS X?
I don't care about exact total numbers, but dilution is not fair for early investers (which is us) as this is not in the open statement when we bought PTS/donate AGS before 228.

I don't agree with the dilution strategy either. It should have been done the Mastercoin way where a certain percentage of shares was set aside from the start for development. Dilution alters all of our calculations which we made from the birth of AGS.

But at least we get the main BTS X chain which means we will be safe from dilution in that chain. If the other chains catch on or not is not as big of a concern because if the first chain has to be proven.

[toast]

Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?

There will be *many* X chains. At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution.

[bytemaster]

The BitShares toolkit will support easy tuning of these parameters and there will be an XT and X chain with the deflationary model.   

So which is better a pure chain that grows organically with no way to finance operations after launch or one that is able to finance operations on an ongoing basis.   I don't know for sure.   If you get some solid delegates elected via the approval voting process then it is quite possible that in the long run the chain that reserves a large percent for those elected to run and manage it will do better than a chain that just spent enough money to build it but is ultimately left where bitcoin is, barely able to pay for a few core developers.   

[sfinder]

Toast, which chain is the future chain you refer to? Final btsx chain?

[ebit]

According to 3i statements, ags and  pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x  chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community

First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

What do you mean by future chains? a other DAC besides BTS X or you mean the future chains of BTS X?
I don't care about exact total numbers, but dilution is not fair for early investers (which is us) as this is not in the open statement when we bought PTS/donate AGS before 228.

BM ,Please verify.

[bodenliu]

According to 3i statements, ags and  pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x  chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community

First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

What do you mean by future chains? a other DAC besides BTS X or you mean the future chains of BTS X?
I don't care about exact total numbers, but dilution is not fair for early investers (which is us) as this is not in the open statement when we bought PTS/donate AGS before 228.

[BTSdac]

First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Hi
what do you mean frist chain， BTS XT ?   I think  you said BTS X?

[ebit]

The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

under Targeted Growth model , i feel you try to treat delegates as miners from pow coins but allocating  80% to miners is not fair to AGS/PTS investors.  I would suggest to lower the % to 20-40% for miners in the next 10 years

Yes . I think so .
Too much change.

[toast]

Everyone relax.
First chain is 50/50 no dilution. These are ideas for future chains.

[BTSdac]

The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hello BM
I think it is very serious thing to change any coin supply .  this way no any benifit to iii and market  confodence
and i think there is no reason to change the total coin supply of BTS  ,

[sfinder]

According to 3i statements, ags and  pts investers will get 50/50 shares to bts x  chain with no dilution . Any change need to get consensus from our community

First chain is 50/50 with no dilution. Afterwards, you should expect to see many chains with different dilution strategies.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[sfinder]

The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

under Targeted Growth model , i feel you try to treat delegates as miners from pow coins but allocating  80% to miners is not fair to AGS/PTS investors.  I would suggest to lower the % to 20-40% for miners in the next 10 years

[bytemaster]

The goal is to expand the role of delegates and give the shareholders the power to select the dilution rate by electing delegates that will return their surplus pay to the shareholders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pendragon3]

One thing I've learned in finance and dabbling in crypto investing is that shareholders and would-be shareholders in general really don't like dilution. Maybe it's all the same with bips as trading units, but I doubt it. Isn't there a way to compensate delegates for their services without diluting the share base? I'm at least 99% certain that Bitshares will get more traction with investors if it has minimal or no dilution.