Number of Bitshares X at launch

[bytemaster]

Hi, Daniel.
Could you please at least get the most basic stuffs (wallets, DPOS) done before you try to suck the very last bit of value of your investors (again)?
Also, for the love of God, please open a new thread before you intend to change anything that's in violation of the original consensus.

We are not changing anything.... everything discussed in this thread was merely for debate purposes only and not to change anything.

[bytemaster]

I agree simple is best.

[yinchanggong]

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

Let's work out the first chain then back to this discussion.. Debate this now is just waste time and resource for the first chain  development, as we all agree that there will be no change on the distribution approach of first chain.

Agreed. This debated happened a bit too early. It is just wrong for doing the right things at wrong time.

With that being said, things are getting too complicated. It's too much stuff to digest for someone single-minded like me. To grow the community, we gotta to keep it simple. Bitcoin is not perfect, but it's simple enough.

Simple is effective.

99.99% of us are not as smart as BM is. So, be considerate to us.

BM, please make bts as simple as possible. If the price of xts down to 1 or 2 dollar when released because it too complex to understant, everyone may lose confidence. then no one would trust 3I again because even the early investors could not get their rewards. This is choice of market.

And I think we should have just one chain if it can work. Simple is more important in market.

[toast]

I agree with the premise that voting is bad governance (I have long been on the record about that).   And there would certainly be a lot of waist.

 

The issue I have with dilution is that what makes voting reasonable for picking delegates in the first place is that they can do virtually no harm anyway.  Dilution effectively gives the delegates (with 50%+ support) basically total power to do whatever they want in the DAC through redistribution.

Delegates are paid their share over many years, shareholders could choose to only vote in delegates that paid dividends and so they'd retain total control. In reality it will be something in between, where delegates are approved to spend some percentage after which the people they paid become legitimate shareholders

[Troglodactyl]

I agree with the premise that voting is bad governance (I have long been on the record about that).   And there would certainly be a lot of waist.

 

The issue I have with dilution is that what makes voting reasonable for picking delegates in the first place is that they can do virtually no harm anyway.  Dilution effectively gives the delegates (with 50%+ support) basically total power to do whatever they want in the DAC through redistribution.

[tianshi]

in my opinion. we should not  open so many chains. it would lead to dilution of the money.

what we shoud do is two things

first. we should now focus on the development of the first chain--- BTS XT

and then, after the first chain is successfully released.  All the PTS\AGS holders should vote for which plan should be used.
instead of using many chains and let the market decide, we should only lauch one chain.

 

[gulu]

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

Let's work out the first chain then back to this discussion.. Debate this now is just waste time and resource for the first chain  development, as we all agree that there will be no change on the distribution approach of first chain.

Agreed. This debated happened a bit too early. It is just wrong for doing the right things at wrong time.

With that being said, things are getting too complicated. It's too much stuff to digest for someone single-minded like me. To grow the community, we gotta to keep it simple. Bitcoin is not perfect, but it's simple enough.

Simple is effective.

99.99% of us are not as smart as BM is. So, be considerate to us.

[bytemaster]

agree with you . BM 's  front-loading 101 spigots is trying to bring all the pow wasteful campaign and evils to POS world.

We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?

Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?

I agree with the premise that voting is bad governance (I have long been on the record about that).   And there would certainly be a lot of waist. 

[sfinder]

 

agree with you . BM 's  front-loading 101 spigots is trying to bring all the pow wasteful campaign and evils to POS world.

We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?

Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?

[Stan]

So there will be two chains?  BTS1   AGS holders 50%   PTS holders 50%   
another one BTS2   AGS holders 10%  PTS holders 10%    delegate 80%

or maybe more? BTS 3\4\5\6………………………………

I feel quite doubtful about the whole thing, and I cannot see any promising future about the whole thing

First of all, with so many chains, if there is someone who wants to buy BTS, which one should he buy? he will be confused and he will be not sure which one to buy and will not want to buy because he will be not sure which one will be the final version.

second, before, all the people thought AGS\PTS would get 50%\50%, so they made the investment, but now they were told they might only get 10% or 10%?  plus, if you said you would let the market decide, the fact woule be that, if PTS AGS holders only get 10% instead of 50%,  the other people could get the rest 80%, of course people would like this plan. it is just like if the people who originally have a lot of money now have to spare their money to the poor people. of course this plan would be more welcome by the people, because poor people are much more.

sorry for my words, i am just very very XX right now.

The key point you are missing is that we do not control what variants others will make.  Neither does Bitcoin.
What is different here, is you get ownership in all the honorable variations.  You win if any one of them wins.  Maybe more than one will be successful.

[bytemaster]

another one BTS2   AGS holders 10%  PTS holders 10%    delegate 80%

First of all... AGS/PTS holders start out with 100% and can nominate delegates that destroy 100% of their surplus pay and thus is potentially no different than the 50/50 approach.

Second... the 10/10/80 is more like 30/30/40 for the first year *IF* the delegates that are elected decide to spend (invest in growth or keep)

So what we are suggesting is that there could be no dilution if the shareholders don't want dilution.  Assuming it is guaranteed when the current shareholders are in control of who they vote for is just wrong.

So it seems like if 60% of AGS/PTS holders want the dilution approach then that is the approach that should be used.  The other 40% are free to "sell" and start their own chain. 

So in all reality it is probably best to let the shareholders vote rather than have us decide unilaterally.

[yidaidaxia]

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

Let's work out the first chain then back to this discussion.. Debate this now is just waste time and resource for the first chain  development, as we all agree that there will be no change on the distribution approach of first chain.

[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?

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?

 

So there will be two chains?  BTS1   AGS holders 50%   PTS holders 50%   
another one BTS2   AGS holders 10%  PTS holders 10%    delegate 80%

or maybe more? BTS 3\4\5\6………………………………

I feel quite doubtful about the whole thing, and I cannot see any promising future about the whole thing

First of all, with so many chains, if there is someone who wants to buy BTS, which one should he buy? he will be confused and he will be not sure which one to buy and will not want to buy because he will be not sure which one will be the final version.

second, before, all the people thought AGS\PTS would get 50%\50%, so they made the investment, but now they were told they might only get 10% or 10%?  plus, if you said you would let the market decide, the fact woule be that, if PTS AGS holders only get 10% instead of 50%,  the other people could get the rest 80%, of course people would like this plan. it is just like if the people who originally have a lot of money now have to spare their money to the poor people. of course this plan would be more welcome by the people, because poor people are much more.

sorry for my words, i am just very very XX right now.

[Troglodactyl]

At some point you have to stop borrowing money and selling promises to fund growth and start growing by reinvesting your profits.

The only profits a DAC has are fees, and all of these dilution strategies I've heard allow for dilution to continue permanently, at the expense of those who previously invested in hopes the endeavor would eventually become profitable.

Once the DAC is profitable, shouldn't it be able to achieve real, rather than artificial inflationary/redistributive growth?  Shouldn't the initial fundraising and allocation of shares be intended to get it to the point of either profitability or failure?

I recognize that multiple methods will inevitably be tried, and I hope this discussion doesn't become offensive or destructive to anyone given the strong feelings on the topic, but I hope the methods that gain traction will be improved by continued serious discussion.

[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.

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).

We all know the drawbacks to mining-based approaches. But consider the drawbacks to front-loading 101 spigots at the scale of what I think you're envisioning. Just imagine the costly rent-seeking activities. influence costs, the wasteful campaigns that 100s delegates would run. Millions of dollars wasted by hundreds of people on campaigning and rent-seeking. Imagine the scams and frauds that a few bad apples would try to perpetrate, the disagreements and fights about broken promises, the lawsuits about privacy, libel, and such. Imagine all of that drama that DAC developers and the community would have to experience. Now multiply that by 10, 20, 30 DACs. Do you see the problem with this governance scheme? It would likely be a nightmare that would give Bitshares a black eye or two. Why endorse this type of system upfront?

Maybe in the future there would be a specialized DAC that really needs this type of funding model to raise 100s of millions of dollars for development or marketing by wasting 10s of millions on campaign spending. But that should be really up to the DAC developer. Why hardwire this problematic governance into the prototype DAC upfront?