How much is a new user worth?

[gulu]

A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.

[Empirical1.1]

At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.

I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.

Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment. 
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place

Kind of reminds me of the famous goose that laid the golden eggs.

[gulu]

I am all for this proposal.

10% increase in shares. Of this 10%, make 2% immediately available. Release the other 8%, say in one year. Something like that. Even making 10% immediately available is not a big issue, as long as funds usage is 100% transparent.

[Stan]

At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.

I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.

Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment. 
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place

[Mysto]

At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.

I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.

[Overthetop]

Effectively, for every 1 BTSX burned we could create at most 1 BTSX for dilution purposes.

I like it. But the burn rate is probably too low for a useful dilution?

Yeah, burn rate is too low for it to be more than a piece of the needed funding.  But it might be able to be one source of funding, while other money comes from other sources.


My order of preference is:
1) Marketing campaign gets funded in some way, BTSX supply doesn't increase above 2B.
2) Marketing campaign gets funded, BTSX supply does increase above 2B.  (By a known fixed amount that is reasonable).
3) Marketing campaign doesnt get funded. 

Bytemaster's ideas are very exciting and this should happen in some form, imo.  If we can avoid dilution that is preferable, if we cant then it is still worth doing.

To be complete, you should rank the following options (shown in unsorted pedagogical order):

• Campaign gets funded in BTSX without dilution.
• Campaign gets funded in BTSX, with limited dilution.
• Do nothing.
• Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors BTSX via snapshot.
• Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors a competitor via snapshot.

#5 is precluded by common sense.
#2 is precluded by frozen consensus.
#3 might lead to #5 by default.
#4 splits the market cap like a PTS snapshot (but everybody gets equal amounts of both).
#1 would need to find sufficient funds some other way - is that possible?

 

IMHO, #1 is the best choice. 

Maybe we could try to find funds from several ways ：

a .  donations

b . sell some vitual items or  products like garments in a game.

c. collect all the burned btsx for funds (the community would agree if we convice them what they would get from the campain ultimately)

In the other side , if we got no choice to take the dilution solution, I suggest below:

1 . set one solid proportion of the dilution like 5%.

2.  sell the diluted btsx at a lower price with  discount like 40%.

3. freeze all of the btsx diluted for a meaningful  period, like 3 years.

why this ?

if we set the dilution cap it would be much easier adopted by the community.

if we sell at a discount ,we could collect funds quickly.

if we freeze the diluted btsx for a long time , the impact to the market would be reduced to a very low level.

[Stan]

Effectively, for every 1 BTSX burned we could create at most 1 BTSX for dilution purposes.

I like it. But the burn rate is probably too low for a useful dilution?

Yeah, burn rate is too low for it to be more than a piece of the needed funding.  But it might be able to be one source of funding, while other money comes from other sources.


My order of preference is:
1) Marketing campaign gets funded in some way, BTSX supply doesn't increase above 2B.
2) Marketing campaign gets funded, BTSX supply does increase above 2B.  (By a known fixed amount that is reasonable).
3) Marketing campaign doesnt get funded. 

Bytemaster's ideas are very exciting and this should happen in some form, imo.  If we can avoid dilution that is preferable, if we cant then it is still worth doing.

To be complete, you should rank the following options (shown in unsorted pedagogical order):

• Campaign gets funded in BTSX without dilution.
• Campaign gets funded in BTSX, with limited dilution.
• Do nothing.
• Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors BTSX via snapshot.
• Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors a competitor via snapshot.

#5 is precluded by common sense.
#2 is precluded by frozen consensus.
#3 might lead to #5 by default.
#4 splits the market cap like a PTS snapshot (but everybody gets equal amounts of both).
#1 would need to find sufficient funds some other way - is that possible?

 

[CLains]

Delayed spending would be possible as well right?

[donkeypong]

This is it, this is the moment  with the above statement we will have a liquid bitUSD market. If it can be done without going over that 2bill cap it will just make it easier for users to say YES and give more credit to bitsharesX.

Also please don't think KYC is going to stop gaming of a referral system, that would just be naive and I know you guys are smarter then that. I like the referral idea as it is a tried and true method that works. Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. I personally think 100$ is a bit steep perhaps a 50$ or use some kind of tiered system based off the deposit amount.   

Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken. Bitcoin has paved the road for many alts and thus I believe adoption can come much easier and quicker if developers can keep up.

Lastly tell me you will put a fiat-on ramp in please before* you would launch the above. I would hate to see users have to drop through the hoop of buying bitcoin just to get into btsx and bitUSD.

Right on. Best response I've read so far.

[bluebit]

OK two questions......

"Net result:  users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?

"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?

I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.

The cards are funded with BitUSD but spend just like any USD converted at 1:1 no spread.  The card service provider would either hold the BitUSD or sell it on the market to get real USD.  As the card service provider is earning a fee from merchants they can handle the spread  (and/or make the BitUSD market).  It would be on the card provider to liquidate the BitUSD and not on the user.

This is it, this is the moment  with the above statement we will have a liquid bitUSD market. If it can be done without going over that 2bill cap it will just make it easier for users to say YES and give more credit to bitsharesX.

Also please don't think KYC is going to stop gaming of a referral system, that would just be naive and I know you guys are smarter then that. I like the referral idea as it is a tried and true method that works. Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. I personally think 100$ is a bit steep perhaps a 50$ or use some kind of tiered system based off the deposit amount.   

Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken. Bitcoin has paved the road for many alts and thus I believe adoption can come much easier and quicker if developers can keep up.

Lastly tell me you will put a fiat-on ramp in please before* you would launch the above. I would hate to see users have to drop through the hoop of buying bitcoin just to get into btsx and bitUSD.

yea speed is a factor, totally agree, other alts are taking Bitshares ideas, next thing you know BitsharesX is Coca Cola and "..." is Pepsi

[GaltReport]

OK two questions......

"Net result:  users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?

"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?

I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.

The cards are funded with BitUSD but spend just like any USD converted at 1:1 no spread.  The card service provider would either hold the BitUSD or sell it on the market to get real USD.  As the card service provider is earning a fee from merchants they can handle the spread  (and/or make the BitUSD market).  It would be on the card provider to liquidate the BitUSD and not on the user.

... Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. ...

Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken...

  for the above.  Example for "free money": Verizon was recently paying $300 for people to switch to them...payment after 30 days.  Of course you gotta sign a contract....but still the concept is tried and true.

[arhag]

Thw problem with concrete limits on dilutions is that there already are: there's no dilution. Our ability to set social consensus disappears forever if we dilute btsx.

Well you can do anything you want with a DPOS network represented by a particular token as long as you get majority delegate approval. You can do anything you want with any blockchain system period through a fork if you are willing to consider the token of the forked system as "the same" as the pre-forked one, which is only a valid assumption if the market consensus decides to switch over nearly all the value from the pre-fork token to the post-fork token.

My argument is that we need to provide a mechanism to let the delegates know when it is okay (meaning too many shareholders won't all suddenly dump that token) to move over to some new version of code that hard forks and changes blockchain rules. Right now we have no blockchain-based mechanism. Dan tells the delegates to fork and they follow orders because they have no better option (that is currently the best mechanism for delegates to know whether shareholders will approve of that action because we are all going by the fairly correct assumption that BTSX shareholders trust Dan). If we want to eventually make this system more decentralized we need to provide an alternative mechanism (I think shareholder ratified delegate proposals are that system).

Thus, with such a system we do a one time switch of the social contract to: any change in the network is "acceptable" (acceptable to the shareholders, maybe not by you personally, if you disagree you can always sell) as long as it is either approved by the current rules of the DAC or by the majority of shares. The current rules (meta-rules if you will) of the DAC can create ways that allow for more agility in changing the rules of the DAC to meet the needs of fast changing scenarios without being weighed down by the burden of majority shareholder approval. For example my 15% * (100% - (percentage of shares voted)) net approval needed rule for changes to how the DAC revenue is distributed. Even rules whose validity is still depend on outside social consensus are possible, such as an elected group of N people which get to vote on hard forks (which are approved if at least M of those N vote to approve it) that don't change the human-understandable rules but rather just fix bugs in the implementation of those rules (if shareholders later find out the hard fork intentionally went beyond a bug fix, they can punish those M people by removing them from power and getting rid of their income). And of course, all of these meta-rules can always be changed if there is majority shareholder consensus.

Edit: If bytemaster really has a philisophical objection to my proposal system and not just a technical cost/benefit one, then I can actually to some degree understand what I think is his view. Providing a solution to quantitatively figure out the consensus of BTSX shareholders at this early stage might actually hurt the growth of BTSX. The lack of this capability means BTSX shareholders need to rely on the next best thing available currently: trust bytemaster unless there is VERY clear dissenting views by reputable forum members (in which case the delegates might hold off on the hard fork). And let's face it, although making DAC decisions based on shareholder consensus is the most fair way, it is not necessarily the best way to grow BTSX value in these early stages (i.e. the benefits of democracy vs a benevolent dictator). That said, this capability eventually has to be built into the toolkit IMHO.

[Ander]

Yes.. this is why we don't want to inflate and are actively working on alternatives.

Great! 

The lack of inflation is definitely a key draw of BTSX. 

[tonyk]

Some are looking at this as a subsidy.  I look at this as the cost of jump starting the product.  I look as BitUSD a bit like an independent business and just as Bitshares had to offer attractive value in the form of future company profits/growth to initial investors in the form of BTS, bitUSD has to also offer value to jump start its business (network effect).  As I understand it, the program is not intended to go on into perpetuity, but to be limited to what is necessary to accrue the initial significant base for bitUSD, our main product.  If the profit potential holds, and I think it will,  its a no-brainer. 

THE NETWORK IS EVERYTHING.  Its the name of the game.  The winners will be the organizations who can build the biggest network the fastest.  The superiority of the technology is only a distance 2nd, so if this will give us that edge then lets do it!

I don’t like the expansion of supply anymore that the next guy, but if it is needed in order to achieve our potential then I’ll accept it. 

I keep in mind that BTSX is still experimental and that this is not the first 90 degree pivot we’ve made in our business plan since inception.  I recall BM’s change of the funding program from PTS to AGS and also the complete rework on the original security logarithm to the new excellent DPOS.  Both of these created a lot of contention at the time, but in retrospect most agree that they were ingenious moves.  So given that recored, BM has my support on this.  It is Bitshare’s flexibility and willingness to adjust to new information and learnings that is one of our greatest strengths. 

However I do think that we need 1) a clear plan 2) clear objectives 3) a precise measure of progress that is openly communicated and 4) quick initial results, in order to keep the BTSX market calm as much as possible about this radical change.     Also, I believe before initiation a contingency  plan should be in place stating value/time benchmarks for achieving certain goals. If certain early benchmarks are not met, the program can be considered unsuccessful and the remainder of the increased BTS can be redistributed back to the holders at the time of the fork.

All of what he said!
 

[James212]

Some are looking at this as a subsidy.  I look at this as the cost of jump starting the product.  I look as BitUSD a bit like an independent business and just as Bitshares had to offer attractive value in the form of future company profits/growth to initial investors in the form of BTS, bitUSD has to also offer value to jump start its business (network effect).  As I understand it, the program is not intended to go on into perpetuity, but to be limited to what is necessary to accrue the initial significant base for bitUSD, our main product.  If the profit potential holds, and I think it will,  its a no-brainer. 

THE NETWORK IS EVERYTHING.  Its the name of the game.  The winners will be the organizations who can build the biggest network the fastest.  The superiority of the technology is only a distance 2nd, so if this will give us that edge then lets do it!

I don’t like the expansion of supply anymore that the next guy, but if it is needed in order to achieve our potential then I’ll accept it. 

I keep in mind that BTSX is still experimental and that this is not the first 90 degree pivot we’ve made in our business plan since inception.  I recall BM’s change of the funding program from PTS to AGS and also the complete rework on the original security logarithm to the new excellent DPOS.  Both of these created a lot of contention at the time, but in retrospect most agree that they were ingenious moves.  So given that recored, BM has my support on this.  It is Bitshare’s flexibility and willingness to adjust to new information and learnings that is one of our greatest strengths. 

However I do think that we need 1) a clear plan 2) clear objectives 3) a precise measure of progress that is openly communicated and 4) quick initial results, in order to keep the BTSX market calm as much as possible about this radical change.     Also, I believe before initiation a contingency  plan should be in place stating value/time benchmarks for achieving certain goals. If certain early benchmarks are not met, the program can be considered unsuccessful and the remainder of the increased BTS can be redistributed back to the holders at the time of the fork.