[BKS PASSED] Motion to stop sale of BKS

[Dhume]

That is great news!

[tomjoad]

Would you disagree with my opinion that it would be better to get the best possible version of the exchange developed before release instead of improving it after it has been released? I"m referring to the first impression argument i made in the other topic.

I agree that releasing a stronger B&C Exchange initially would improve the odds that it generates early momentum. I’m curious how @JordanLee’s perspective has changed since he commented on this last:

[Passed] Motion to provide seed funding for B&C Exchange - a decentralized exchange built on the Peershares platform

Just as Nu development was greatly needed after our initial release in September, I’m sure additional development on B&C will also be essential. There are additional features which are very important like using time lock to release deposited funds regardless of what signers do. For instance, funds could be transferred from a deposit address to a withdrawal address one year after deposit. This would occur even if every single signer failed to sign. I have discussed how B&C can be used to guarantee Nu liquidity for a period of time and that is not part of the initial implementation. I suspect the escrow and reversible transaction capabilities are also very much worth pursuing but are unfunded at the 200,000 level. QA is also almost completely unfunded at that level (we are only paying for 8 hours a week at the 200,000 level). There are a lot of good reasons to continue getting additional funding. It will either have to be provided now or in a few months if B&C Exchange is to continue to flower.

We should use the time when B&C Exchange is novel and exciting to members of the community to get full funding.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’m in favour of a motion to cease BKS sales immediately. There are still a number of features we want to get funded. Ongoing development will be important to the success of B&C Exchange, so I fully expect we will see BKS grants in the future to fund development and marketing.

Now is not the right time to raise funds for future development.

Thank you for your vote of confidence!

If there’s no demand for substantial change of the motion draft, I’m going to finalize it within the next two days.

Additional funding for additional features.

If each of the features gets funded with a grant, there’s transparency and the possibility to achieve financial controlling.

I don’t think the current risk is much lower than the risk of the initial funders, it’s not like the exchange is up and running the blockchain isn’t even finalized yet (not trying to sound negative here).

The seed investors provided BCE development with money when it was unclear whether minimum funding would be achieved. They could have faced a total loss or would have funded the remaining money themselves.
Second-round purchasers sit here and wait for BCE to work and try to support the best they can whatever that means.
Their risk is considerably higher than the risk of people who wait for the first order to be processed on BCE to storm th e inbox of BCE and grab some of the remaining 50,000 BKS at $4.something.

The blockchain is finalized like @willy already pointed out.

Would you disagree with my opinion that it would be better to get the best possible version of the exchange developed before release instead of improving it after it has been released?

Everything comes at a price.
The $200,000 that BCE has available for development will already fund some milestones. After only some of them have been achieved I bet there’s some recognition of BCE and people might want to buy BKS.
They will pay more than $4 then.
BCE will get even more money to develop an even better exchange if the sale gets stopped now and continued by BKS grants later.
If you are in favor of continuing the sale now, BCE will get money, but according to my prediction less than with a stopped sale and BKS grants later.
No need for a panic sale now

[masterOfDisaster]

I agree that releasing a stronger B&C Exchange initially would improve the odds that it generates early momentum.

I totally agree with your assessment, only I see a different and more efficient way to that goal.
Please have a look at the last paragraph of my last post. I don’t want to quote this here, would feel silly

[Dhume]

I agree that releasing a stronger B&C Exchange initially would improve the odds that it generates early momentum. I’m curious how @JordanLee’s perspective has changed since he commented on this last:

I’m very curious about this as well, since from the quote you posted it seems Jordan originally had the same position I am now holding. What is your reasoning for this reversal in position Jordan?

[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:13, topic:2485, full:true”]The seed investors provided BCE development with money when it was unclear whether minimum funding would be achieved. They could have faced a total loss or would have funded the remaining money themselves.
Second-round purchasers sit here and wait for BCE to work and try to support the best they can whatever that means.
Their risk is considerably higher than the risk of people who wait for the first order to be processed on BCE to storm th e inbox of BCE and grab some of the remaining 50,000 BKS at $4.something.[/quote]
People buying BKS right now are still part of the second-round purchasers no? As stated I would agree with you that it’s a good idea to have the sale finished by the time BKS hits the exchanges.

The blockchain is finalized like @willy already pointed out.

Just now ye, right after I posted.

[quote]Everything comes at a price.
The $200,000 that BCE has available for development will already fund some milestones. After only some of them have been achieved I bet there’s some recognition of BCE and people might want to buy BKS.
They will pay more than $4 then.
BCE will get even more money to develop an even better exchange if the sale gets stopped now and continued by BKS grants later.
If you are in favor of continuing the sale now, BCE will get money, but according to my prediction less than with a stopped sale and BKS grants later.
No need for a panic sale now
[/quote]
The question is will additional functionalities upon release be more valuable than selling part or whole of that 50000 unsold BKS later on for a higher price? I think it is you disagree. I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[masterOfDisaster]

The question is will additional functionalities upon release be more valuable than selling part or whole of that 50000 unsold BKS later on for a higher price?

I don’t know what you mean with “release”, but we already have a production blockchain. That doesn’t support the transactions required for BCE being an exchange.

I’m not talking about stopping the BKS sale now and wait until all is complete and the $200,000 funding is consumed.

I’m talking about stopping the BKS sale now and making grants once the demand for BKS is higher than it is now, because some parts of it are already working.
I doubt this will bring BCE less than $4 per BKS

It will bring even more functionalities if you can sell 50,000 BKS at $6 and have $300,000 for additional development instead of selling them for $200,000!

Regarding current demand for BKS:

Got unwanted Blockshares due to holding Nushares? Sell them!

At the moment nobody buys BKS from BCE!
It’s the same for weeks now.
They all wait and want to buy later at a smaller risk or buy now, but below $4 - if that reminds you of something…

[Sabreiib]

Potential investors are waiting and seeing. Just like me.

Because we don’t know the activity of NSR holders’ BKS, will they sell cheaply? If so, I’ll buy BKS on CCEK etc. If not, I’ll buy directly from developers.

Since we can go for auction of BKS as BKS holders wish from now, does it matter if we stop sale of BKS and open again in future?

[Nagalim]

does it matter if we stop sale of BKS and open again in future?

The difference is accountability of the shareholders to the allocation of funds. If we raise 50k for general developer funds, we operate under the concept of a reserve with money that can flow from project to project. If we make individual project grants the money is allocated by the shareholders directly, rather than using a third party to act as reserve.

[Dhume]

I don’t know what you mean with “release”, but we already have a production blockchain. That doesn’t support the transactions required for BCE being an exchange.

With release I mean once the exchange is functional and opened to the public.

[quote]I’m not talking about stopping the BKS sale now and wait until all is complete and the $200,000 funding is consumed.
I’m talking about stopping the BKS sale now and making grants once the demand for BKS is higher than it is now, because some parts of it are already working.
I doubt this will bring BCE less than $4 per BKS
It will bring even more functionalities if you can sell 50,000 BKS at $6 and have $300,000 for additional development instead of selling them for $200,000! [/quote]
Your automatically assuming that BKS demand will be higher when the exchange is released. This is not necessarily the case, as stated in my post I think demand will be less then sell pressure. Even if we burn the 50000 for now. It could take months if not more than a year before demand is high enough to raise price over 4 dollars a piece.

My whole point is that to ensure demand is high in the future (and thus increase value of BKS) we need to release the best possible exchange we can. And I’m assuming that’s going to acquire additional funding (according to JasonLee the 200k is only for basic functioning, no gimmicks) on top of the 200k. Hence why I’m all for selling as much of that 50k shares we have left as we can, even if we need to sell them slightly cheaper (action them if you will).

You’re wrong to automatically assume that demand will be higher when the exchange starts operating and thus giving us the possibility to sell the remaining BKS at a higher price.

I feel my proposed strategy is less risky than yours and will ensure a greater chance of success and eventually lead to more valuable BKS.

[JordanLee]

I’m curious how @JordanLee’s perspective has changed since he commented on this last:

The only thing that has changed is that we have observed weak demand for BlockShares very recently. Leaving BKS sales open prevents BKS from going up until all shares have sold. With shares not selling quickly right now, that could be a while. Creating a situation where BKS can drop in value but not rise for months is likely to have a dampening effect on BKS purchases.

In order to succeed, we have to prioritize defending the value of BlockShares. Making BlockShares more scarce than planned is an excellent way to do that. We have funding to complete a functional exchange. As we progress down that path, hopefully the project will get more recognition and BKS demand will rise. Then we can get additional funding.

I suspect those who are opposed to stopping BKS sales haven’t sufficiently appreciated that the current pace of BKS sales suggests that we simply don’t have the option of raising significant additional funds right now, even if we keep sales open. Where keeping sales open places heavy selling pressure on the BKS price, the potential problems of keeping sales open outweigh the potential benefits.

[Dhume]

Jordan what is your opinion on creating a sort of limited time auction for the remaining shares. Where we create additional incentive to buy BKS now and after say 2/3 weeks have passed the sale is over and we stop BKS sale through the main channel. For example a progressive discount (I posted this earlier in a different topic) where you get 4% discount for every 1000 BKS you buy after your initial 1000 bought.

So say someone wants to buy 4000 shares. He gets 3 times (first discount after 2000, second one after 3000 BKS bought etcetc) 4% discount netting him 12% discount in total over his purchase. This combined with the limited time frame where one can still buy BKS though the “official” channel should spur some significant interest I think. Also this means we remove the 50000 BKS before BKS gets traded on exchanges and thus relieving sale pressure, yet still generating additional funds now for additional functionality.

[JordanLee]

Jordan what is your opinion on creating a sort of limited time auction for the remaining shares.

I favour this. I’m inclined to believe the optimal time period to continue BKS sales after passage of the proposed motion is three to seven days. This approach probably enhances short term fundraising prospects compared to our original plan.

For example a progressive discount (I posted this earlier in a different topic) where you get 4% discount for every 1000 BKS you buy after your initial 1000 bought.

I doubt existing shareholders would feel this is fair to them.

[Dhume]

For example a progressive discount (I posted this earlier in a different topic) where you get 4% discount for every 1000 BKS you buy after your initial 1000 bought.

I doubt existing shareholders would feel this is fair to them.

Fair point. Maybe we could also include previously bought shares towards discount on the next shares you buy. So someone who has already bought 5000 shares would start with 16% discount on the shares he buys in the auction.

[Sabreiib]

Fair point. Maybe we could also include previously bought shares towards discount on the next shares you buy. So someone who has already bought 5000 shares would start with 16% discount on the shares he buys in the auction.

Let’s wait and see what BKS price trend on CCEDK and other exchanges.
If price drops to 1$, I think your discount plan becomes meaningless.

[Dhume]

[quote=“Sabreiib, post:24, topic:2485, full:true”]Let’s wait and see what BKS price trend on CCEDK and other exchanges.
If price drops to 1$, I think your discount plan becomes meaningless.
[/quote]

My proposal is to complete this action before BSK is added on an exchange.

[Nagalim]

before BSK is added on an exchange.

You’re too late then. Trading is open on ccedk.

[cryptog]

As stated here, I favor such a motion.

The main reason is that B&C got the initial minimum funding needed for the first release.
That first release is intended to show the basic features of a working decentralized exchange, enough to illustrate its potential, I fee.
Later on, if B&C needs additional exchange, B&C’s shareholders will decide to resume the sales of BKS.
As a very early shareholder of Nu, I can talk from experience. At the beginning, when Nu was first released back in Sep 2014, Nu had only basic features (everything is relative) meaning no NSR grant voting, no tiered liquidity, no dynamic fees voting, no Android wallet to name a few items. Then, shareholders decided to create funds (out of NSR and NBT dilution or creation) to fund the development of such advanced features.

The second reason why I think we should stop the sales of BKS is to protect the price of BKS and reward early investors by increasing its rarity value as stated by @masterOfDisaster in this thread.

I feel that one reason that could motivate some shareholders to push for keeping the sales is greed: getting more BKS at a price below auction price.
But as described again by @masterOfDisaster I think overall increasing the scarcity value now would get you a better ROI in a few month than getting more shares now.

[masterOfDisaster]

I really don’t want to step on your toes, @Dhume as I appreciate your efforts to sanitize the market price of BKS by trading them off exchanges.

But so far the main criticism of this motion seems to be originating from you and you have a vital interest in keeping the sell pressure high by continuing the BKS sale to fuel your buy approach: Got unwanted Blockshares due to holding Nushares? Sell them!
As long as the sale of 50,000 BKS at $4.x is continued, this pushes the market price per BKS down, below $4.

While I can only encourage you to stick to your plan to buy “unwanted” BKS, I think this motion is in the best interest of BCE and its holders.
It’s required to stop limiting BKS market price at below $4 and increase the total market value of BCE.
This will make BCE more valuable, more attractive for future buyers and will BCE allow to get more money by selling BKS later when they are “wanted” at even higher prices to fund additional development/marketing/dividends!.
This additional funding will be very transparent and allow financial control due to the nature of BKS grants which will create BKS for a specific purpose based on BKS holder consensus.

If no fundamental and reasonable criticism of this motion gets posted I’ll finalize it within the next 12 hours.

BKS holders, please be prepared to start voting

• in favor of this motion by entering the motion hash (once it’s available in the initial post) into the BCE client while minting OR
• against this motion, by NOT entering it into the BCE client while minting - just leave everything as it is (with regard to motion)

[Dhume]

[quote=“masterOfDisaster,
post:28, topic:2485, full:true”]

As long
as the sale of 50,000 BKS at $4.x is continued, this pushes the market price
per BKS down, below $4.[/quote]

As I pointed out in the original post in my topic.

[quote]While
I can only encourage you to stick to your plan to buy “unwanted” BKS,
I think this motion is in the best interest of BCE and its holders.

It’s
required to stop limiting BKS market price at below $4 and increase the total
market value of BCE.

This
will make BCE more valuable, more attractive for future buyers and will BCE
allow to get more money by selling BKS later when they are "wanted"
at even higher prices to fund additional development/marketing/dividends!.

This
additional funding will be very transparent and allow financial control due to
the nature of BKS grants which will create BKS for a specific purpose based on
BKS holder consensus. [/quote]

I think we’ve discussed this enough, but it’s a different business philosophy. I am in
favor of raising additional funds now to ensure additional functionality when
the exchange go’s live, you are not. I am against the “planned” dilution of
shares later on by issuing new BKS to fund additional development later, you
are not. But by all means put the motion up for voting I like the voting
mechanism and am totally in favor of shareholders deciding, even if I
personally disagree.

[Sentinelrv]

Shareholders could always pass a motion to fund more development from the profit gained from BlockCredit sales. Also, if that profit didn’t exist yet, BlockShare grants and auctions could be used, but that doesn’t mean that BlockShares would be permanently diluted. We could then do share buybacks and burning once BlockCredit sales pick up.