Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 23, 2014, 07:57:18 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 23, 2014, 07:50:33 PM

You just linked entire threads, you expecting me to find proof for you in those thread, there's nothing specifically mentioning 3% VOTE is all paid to the dev team. If this is true, then link to the post that specifically states that this is true, and I will definitely be very unhappy and post my disagreement. I see no such post by the dev team so far, so please do link that post for me.

Who do you think is going to get paid for these marketing and development projects in the future as well?

If it was just a merger, why do the ratios get adjusted and the quantity of tokens change? Why couldn't consolidation happen keeping 2 billion and take a snapshot of everyone's ratio?

All you have to do is read the Initial post that I already linked to in the thread.You have great fears about reading documentation from the bitshares forum for some odd reason. Here I will copy it over for you:

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
4) We need to recognize those who have helped fund development after Feb 28th so they don't compete with us.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
6) We need to provide for long term funding and growth.
7) We need to resolve the consensus problem once and for all.

As a community effort we are stronger if we can agree on changes using proof of stake and we should agree once and for all that the majority will rule here. Those that want a stable money will use BitGold or BitSilver because those are not subject to change, only supply and demand. If you cannot trust the community of stakeholders to act wisely then create a rigid system with no rule changes and attempt to compete.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
2) End PTS... BitShares will evolve to incorporate every possible feature that stakeholders vote on.
3) If there is a clone then it should start out with stakeholders it thinks are best... because BitShares holders are uniting.
4) Add stake holder approved dilution without limit to BitShares X.
5) Bring in all AGS holders and given them a stake in BitShares X that cannot be moved for 6 months... the ratio that this stake should be given should be equal to PTS market cap... so $5 million or 10% dilution of BTSX allocated to these individuals. This is effectively BTSX buying out our competition.
6) Bring in one last PTS snapshot also valued at $5 million for another 10% dilution of BTSX... 6 months until funds could be spent... buy out this competition and end PTS.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us. Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

Our goal will be to scale BitShares to handle the transaction volume and users... to solve the scaling problem while still remaining decentralized and allowing 0 barriers to entry for competition except our network effect.

At the risk of calling BitShares one DAC to rule them all... I think we can worry about that after we have achieved critical mass, until then someone else may come along and build one DAC to rule them all and we don't want them to get there if we can get there first.

Again, you are just regurgitating what I already know, and avoiding answering the question, where the hell does it mention 3% VOTE is entirely going to the dev team? Where's the proof of your claim? Please don't confuse your own imagination from reality.

Also, I have no problem with sensible ongoing funding to the dev team, Bitcoin is paying $500 million each year to miners/pools/hardware vendor/electric company. Why would I object funding the Bitshare dev team? I could tell you right now, it's costs way less than $500 million for sure.

But I don't like you spreading rumors such as all 3% VOTE going to the dev team, this is simply not true. Or else you would have provided me with a specific proof post by now, I have asked you about 10 times already.