Poll

Better or worse?

Better
69 (90.8%)
Worse
7 (9.2%)

Total Members Voted: 73

Author Topic: Alternate Allocation Proposal  (Read 8661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
to me it doesn't make any difference since I was all in in AGS and didn't want to bother anymore about PTS volatility  since I am for the looooonggggg run...

But PTS price will not increase prior to snapshots if the exact allocation is not known in advance..so people holding PTS wanting to get out and others thinking of getting in will not have any opportunity to do so..The uncertainty about the exact allocation prior to the snapshots is reflected on PTS price.

Other than that I agree with you.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Quote
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.

For what is worth I disagree.. Allocation should have been clear and should have been finalized already way before the snapshot..

If you want investors to buy  PTS they should know exactly how many bips out of the total supply they are getting in advance for the PTS that they hold during the snapshot in order to be able to speculate on market cap and make proper investment decisions.
There has been a pretty clear theory circulated that allocations that don't give at least 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS will be rejected by the market.   The initial proposal by Toast announced around the time of snapshot only gave 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS.  Investors can do as they like.  Making premature and unnecessary commitments to investors so they can make buy and sell decisions serves no purpose and will bite you in the a** when you realize the system would have greater chance for success if a change could be made.  For what it's worth, my position was that the snapshot was also premature.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 02:52:01 pm by Agent86 »

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.  I think the main priority should be getting a testnet up that has domain functionality and bidding.  I also think announcing the snapshot date before this was done was very premature.  But the date is announced so it will be used, but I don't think it's necessary to commit to an allocation scheme until it's basically ready to launch.  We should release a chain when there is a use to it or a reason to release; hopefully a functional system that can be marketed.  If we need more resources to get the development and marketing for a good rollout we could still talk to investors which would impact the allocation.  I see no point or value in rushing to release another copy of the bitshares toolkit and calling it the DNS.  It almost feels like the snapshot and allocation and naming conversations are creating an illusion of progress when progress should be taking place on getting a functional testnet.  I haven't even seen documentation for the most recent proposed algorithms.

I would also request there be no commitment yet to release the domain system I proposed on the same chain and with this snapshot date and this allocation.  Maybe that's the best thing to do and maybe it isn't.  Let's do development with the goal of getting up testnets and do first things first.


PS I was confused too when I realized that the DAC name is in discussion after the snapshot announcement... ???  Really weird... ::)

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
Quote
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.

For what is worth I disagree.. Allocation should have been clear and should have been finalized already way before the snapshot..

If you want investors to buy  PTS they should know exactly how many bips out of the total supply they are getting in advance for the PTS that they hold during the snapshot in order to be able to speculate on market cap and make proper investment decisions.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
I think there is no need to finalize an allocation at this point.  I think the main priority should be getting a testnet up that has domain functionality and bidding.  I also think announcing the snapshot date before this was done was very premature.  But the date is announced so it will be used, but I don't think it's necessary to commit to an allocation scheme until it's basically ready to launch.  We should release a chain when there is a use to it or a reason to release; hopefully a functional system that can be marketed.  If we need more resources to get the development and marketing for a good rollout we could still talk to investors which would impact the allocation.  I see no point or value in rushing to release another copy of the bitshares toolkit and calling it the DNS.  It almost feels like the snapshot and allocation and naming conversations are creating an illusion of progress when progress should be taking place on getting a functional testnet.  I haven't even seen documentation for the most recent proposed algorithms.

I would also request there be no commitment yet to release the domain system I proposed on the same chain and with this snapshot date and this allocation.  Maybe that's the best thing to do and maybe it isn't.  Let's do development with the goal of getting up testnets and do first things first.

Offline yinchanggong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • 微博 引长弓Fate
BTSX delegate: google.helloworld    microsoft.helloworld
BTSX Account:yinchg   Manager of BTSXCHINA Charity Fund
引长弓Fate 新浪微博

Offline dxtr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
  • United We Stand, Dispersed We Are.
    • View Profile
From delegates perspective this is a profitable solution, but initial BTSX delegates were (and still are) selected by a few strong hands.

If there are another 5% given to developers and AGS/PTS holders are given less than ~20% each coin (BTSX is 50/50 AGS/PTS) then:
- developers will initially have between 10 - 50+% of all shares (5% + BTC/PTS from AGS donations and some privately owned MYSTERY stake they can buy cheap before resolving the mystery :D, and  this all x2 since remaining 50% will be produced in following years);
- it will be even harder for small investors to elect their delegate of choice without help of a developer/ another token-whale;
-  new users will probably drive down token's value - it's free money, but it's fine since more people will get interested;

So it will start even more centralized in comparison to those systems we are trying to replace.

This proposal could stand like that (or better with some changes) but with some additional steps:
- 101 is not a fixed number of total delegates, it is a minimum # of delegates required;
- # of delegates can grow and shrink after each round, between 101 to, say up to 8640 (1 block / delegate / day);
- 0.01% (1% of 1%) of all shares is the minimum approval threshold to get a delegate on a waiting list;
- after round is finished, network recalibrates itself like below:
{
avg delegate participation during las round: 90%;
number of active delegates: 101;
number of delegates with a warning: 17;
number of delegates to lay off (second warning): 11;
minimum threshold of future round avg. delegate participation: 80%;
number of new delegates to introduce: 20 (if all fail, avg del part will be 80%) - select delegates from waiting list (randomly or randomly with weighted probability by approval votes );
};
Delegates that have a warning can clear their warning after producing in from 3 to x consecutive rounds;
Delegates that were fired can get on a waiting list after placing a fee payment;
Registered users can get on a waiting list by placing a fee.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:56:23 pm by dxtr »
Help me out:     wallet_approve_delegate mr.scroodge true

Offline urbanpauper

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
btsx: urbanpauper

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
 +5%

Good distribution, it takes care of the community supporting the DAC as well as those developping and keeping it running afterward.

Good job Toast!  +5%

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
25% AGS
25% PTS
50% delegates  (about20% per year)

This means that the investors and the maintenance is equal treatment

ase you see,Volunteers and  delegates will set up funds to promote,its neddless to make the distribution become more complex.

Our team has held several activities to promote btsx, these are self funding or donations, promotion funds easily scandal. donations from the delegates is enough.

Developers need to get paid and also probably something set aside for marketing via Sharedrop. It makes sense to do it the way Toast decided to do it. There is no better initial distribution I can think of.

In these matters in my opinion as long as these things are set in the beginning the developers in the original social consensus always had the right to do this. Also really PTS/AGS gets 40% which is double the minimum.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 07:56:56 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
To be clear:  The allocation will never change in a way that takes pre-committed equity away from anyone except delegates. So this is a "one-way" change. MYSTERY sharedrop was not defined so we can take theirs.


New proposal:

20% AGS
20% PTS
5% MYSTERY sharedrop
5% dev preallocation  -  split among 4 or 5 trusted organizations (i3, das, dacsun, bitsuperlab, maybe more)
50% delegates  (about 22.5% in first year, or 45% of remaining pool each year)


Biggest question: Will this be *perceived* as more or less FAIR?

This is fine as this is aligned with community expectations.
Pre-allocation in my opinion is good because we know developers need to get paid.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline h99t1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
better !

my points

1. it should be clear for everyone max. shares will be 10bn, but if delegates choose to burn some of the fees it will less shares available.
2. i would prefer 0% preallocation for devs but say clear that the devs will run at least X delegates for 2-3 years. with the votingpower of I3 it should be easly done.

great work toast

Offline 乌鸦

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile

By the way,why nobody Mentioned 1 SHARE 1 VOTE, I think it is the core problem