Number of Bitshares X at launch

[天籁]

 

I am worry about this topic now.
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.

[alt]

I am worry about this topic now.
It's not a correct time to debate this.
back to the dryrun test please.

[Stan]

I am a little confused.

Here are my understanding as follows:

In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%

While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.

Am I right?

It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.

   
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.

To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.

But the market will decide.

Stan, I am still confused.

Did you mean that AGS\PTS holders could only get 10%\10% when BTS XV or XC are released?

You will undoubtedly wind up owning several variants as several operators offer their own optimized clones.  Whether the first full-featured 50/50 PTS/AGS chain beats some other competitor that allocates 10/10 and makes smarter use of the remaining 80% remains to be seen.

You will own shares in all of them so presumably the one the market likes best will make you the most money, regardless of the initial percentages.  Keep them all or sell the ones you don't think will succeed.

Never before have investors had the chance to own ALL the competing options for the price of one.  How's that for hedging your bets?

 

[tianshi]

I am a little confused.

Here are my understanding as follows:

In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%

While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.

Am I right?

It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.

   
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.

To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.

But the market will decide.

Stan, I am still confused.

Did you mean that AGS\PTS holders could only get 10%\10% when BTS XV or XC are released?


 

[pendragon3]

but I haven't  got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.

This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts

So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure.  View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion?    How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it?  Several million dollars.   To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking. 

In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders.

Isn't infrastructure investment (and investment in general) really the job of the DAC chain developer, who can reserve some of the supply upfront? Why does funding investment need to fall under the purview of the delegates?

The delegates' first order of business--their prime directive--should be to ensure the day to day operation of the network goes smoothly. Transparency, trust, and absence of any real or perceived conflicts of interest are paramount. That's the whole raison d'tre behind DPOS, isn't it?

It's tempting to try to expand the role of delegates to get cross-benefits for "free". But consider whether it is the best governance model to try to rely so much on trust in a system that is supposed to be largely a trustless system. Again, the analogy to a corporate board maybe useful here. The DAC developer is like an entrepreneur/manager, and the delegates are like an (advisory) board. It is best if the investment is handled by the DAC designer/developer. The delegates should do their role. If they do marketing on the side essentially pro bono, that is all well and good, but they should not be given Carte Blanche over so much of the shareholders' resources.

[Stan]

I am a little confused.

Here are my understanding as follows:

In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%

While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.

Am I right?

It is the responsibility of every DAC developer/operator to make those decisions
in competition with others who will try to make better decisions.

   
To get our support (and presumably your support) they must honor the 10% minimums.

To get our recommendation, a DAC must be most competitive and of greatest benefit to PTS/AGS holders (like ourselves) in the long run.

But the market will decide.

[Stan]

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

What I would really like to see is this:

1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.

The challenges with this approach is:

1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates

You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.

"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?

To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."

If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.

Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.

Which is better?

1.  Use mining to gradually release the last 80% of shares along some front-loaded curve that burns all the money people are willing to pay for those shares.

2.  Have a developer keep the last 80% of shares to be spent along some front-loaded curve as the developer thinks is best to achieve success..

3.  Have the last 80% put in 101 spigots that dispense along some front-loaded curve as 101 elected delegates campaign and shareholders vote to get control of one of the spigots.

4.  Release all the shares up front leaving no operating budget and hope that someone will donate to maintain and grow the assets.

You don't have to choose.  All four are likely to be tried at some point.  Your task is to pick the winner(s).

[tianshi]

I am a little confused.

Here are my understanding as follows:

In BTS X (including XT or XV version), PTS\AGS holders will have 50%\50%

While in future DACs like music, lotto, ME etc., PTS\AGS holders will have 10%\10%, and use the allocation plan BM just mentioned yesterday.

Am I right?

[天籁]

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

What I would really like to see is this:

1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.

The challenges with this approach is:

1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates

You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.

"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?

To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."

If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.

Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.

[bytemaster]

All of that said I am also strongly opposed to voting as a resource allocation strategy so know that there is internal conflict that I am looking to resolve.

[alt]

but I haven't  got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.

This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts (please show up and join the discussion).

The goal is not to give it to the delegates for simply producing blocks.  The goal is to make it the DAC flexible enough at the protocol level to adjust its resource allocation strategy dynamically and fairly according to shareholder wishes.  Shareholders select delegates.  Delegates are highly paid and thus there is competition for this role.

As delegates compete they make campaign promises such as:

1) I will fund development of a web wallet with Developers X, Y and Z
2) I will fund a faucet
3) I will return money to the shareholders
4) I will pay to lobby the government
5) I will buy a superbowl ad.

The shareholders can then decide what mix of delegates / resource allocation they desire.   

So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure.  View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion?    How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it?  Several million dollars.   To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking. 

In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders.

Thanks for your reply.
It's a complex topic.
I don't think I can  discus with my pool English.
But I always support  to find the best way.

[pendragon3]

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

What I would really like to see is this:

1) A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method once this chain gains traction then clones can pop up on their own to compete.

The challenges with this approach is:

1) Not everyone supports the dilution approach
2) How do you handle different snapshot dates

You guys will no doubt find the best, or one of the best, ways to proceed. I don't want to ruffle feathers needlessly or waste anyone's time here. But I still don't understand the current line of thinking.

"A single chain that upgrades over time and adds new features supported via the dilution method..."
My question is, would new features really be that costly to implement? Isn't there another way to support development other than by diluting shareowners?

To your point 2), "Not everyone supports the dilution approach".. I'd say that is a bit too mild. More accurate to say, "very few support the dilution approach, and many are vehemently against it."

If you're going to consider dilution (which is not advisable), then at least consider how it's done in the finance world. In the case of stocks, dilution is a byproduct of capital raising. Selling shares to fund a project lets the market be the final arbiter. If the market doesn't like the proposed use of funds, then the share price will drop, voila, instant feedback mechanism.

Here, giving delegates or developers carte Blanche by diluting so much in advance is very, very different. It's just plain arbitrary and asking for trouble.

[bytemaster]

but I haven't  got it, why give 80% to delegate is better than now.

This probably deserves its own thread and is often discussed in the Mumble Hangouts (please show up and join the discussion).

The goal is not to give it to the delegates for simply producing blocks.  The goal is to make it the DAC flexible enough at the protocol level to adjust its resource allocation strategy dynamically and fairly according to shareholder wishes.  Shareholders select delegates.  Delegates are highly paid and thus there is competition for this role.

As delegates compete they make campaign promises such as:

1) I will fund development of a web wallet with Developers X, Y and Z
2) I will fund a faucet
3) I will return money to the shareholders
4) I will pay to lobby the government
5) I will buy a superbowl ad.

The shareholders can then decide what mix of delegates / resource allocation they desire.   

So the alternative of hardcoding minimal rewards (a fraction of TRX fees) for delegates is effectively making the decision to rely upon voluntary investment in infrastructure.  View this like a company and ask how much would a normal company spend to grow to be worth 100 Billion?    How much has this community put into the DAC to boot strap it?  Several million dollars.   To think that several million dollars is enough to take it to 100 Billion is very wishful thinking. 

In any case, the shareholders get what they want and the success of the DAC is entirely on their shoulders. 

[Stan]

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.

what is this suppose to mean? We need a clear and official clarification of this.

Does this stickied topic help?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0

that topic is exactly what I believe it should be. see the fourth paragraph:

If our goal is to see the value of BitShares XT to grow then we need to future-proof peoples investment in BitShares XT after launch against being devalued by one of our planned upgrades or the flood of variants with different assets.   For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.   Thus the primary vehicle for investing in future BitShares X chains will be to own BitShares XT.... likewise, chains that are variants of BitShares XI or XV should honor their parent with 100% stake.     

if they are all 100%, how come  "At least one of them will have 50/50 without dilution."

All we can do is recommend what appears to be best at any point in time.  As better ideas are developed, they may be more promising (more likely to succeed in the marketplace).   So, if they are perceived to be better, somebody will release them and then the market will decide.

This leaves III with the choice of updating our recommendations to take into account new innovations, or denying the value of those innovations and having our recommendations become increasingly irrelevant.

The 10 Natural Laws of the Crypto Universe dictate that the first BTSX DAC (50/50 without dilution) will be cloned (by somebody) to give it new competitive advantages as soon as they are invented.
 
One such competitive advantage is likely to be a highly motivated group of trusted celebrity delegates with a talent for promoting themselves and the industry - competing for the right to represent the community and working hard to bring in new stakeholders to vote for them.  Someone will surely release something like it, regardless of what we do or say.

Another competitive advantage might be a variant that teams 50/50 with some other big community - who knows?  Will you cling to the first release of BTSX if DogeShares heads for the moon?  You will own both and have to decide whether to keep or sell each of them.

It is our duty to recommend to you the most competitive solution we know of at any point in time.  Everyone can take that into account in making their own personal investment decisions.  Fragmentation will happen, but will be reduced by having III put its weight behind what we believe is the best of the best.  If we fail to do that, our credibility will slip and so will our ability to mitigate fragmentation. 

We produce a toolkit that developers/operators can use to release all kinds of variants.  To succeed, there needs to be a developer/operator who believes in one particular combination of parameters enough to release it and continue to support it -  and there needs to be a marketplace that will embrace that solution above all others.

Your role in this forum is to convince would-be developers/operators that there is a demand for a particular instantiation of the general-purpose toolkit we are developing for you.

Argue the merits.   

[天籁]

You denied the BitShares X Product Roadmap！https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940.0

You want to put the BTS completely fragmented?!

For this reason we have decided to recommend that all future chains based upon the concept behind BitShares X be initialized with a snapshot (100%) of the state of BitShares XT around the time of their launch.

Key word here is initialized with snapshot. All chains BM plans to make will still do this. Some will print new shares because he thinks that will make that chain more likely to be worth more overall. Some will not to appease investors. In either case, you have a stake in them all.

I'll make a few chains too, some initialized with some shares to the altcoins that'll be traded on them, some airdropped on real-world organizations (partnerships with traditional businesses). Whatever.

You have stake in them all.

Shall I point you to the original whitepaper from fall 2013 which describes this as a multi-chain project? That's the point, there is not one chain. The network effect is in the bitassets.