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.
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.
Let’s wait and see what BKS price trend on CCEDK and other exchanges.
If price drops to 1$, I think your discount plan becomes meaningless.
[quote=“Sabreiib, post:24, topic:2485, full:true”]Let’s wait and see what BKS price trend on CCEDK and other exchanges.
If price drops to 1$, I think your discount plan becomes meaningless.
[/quote]
My proposal is to complete this action before BSK is added on an exchange.
You’re too late then. Trading is open on ccedk.
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.
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
[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.
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.
I am not against additional funding.
I’m against wasting money by selling BKS cheap.
I don’t know what timeline you have in mind when you are talking about the exchange going live. I think of several months from now.
I expect that BKS will be sold until then even if this motion passes and the current sale stops.
Only they might be sold for way above $4.x then.
In the end less than the current total amount of a bit over 200,000 BKS1 that is currently existing (50,000 of them are not yet sold) might be needed to fund even more development and marketing.
You are speaking of a planned dilution of shares?
This motion is going to stop it by burning up to 50,000 BKS.
I’m bringing this motion up for voting.
1 bcexchanged getinfo | grep money
"moneysupply" : 208658.0353,
Here are the verification results of all the motion and custodian hashes I could find in this thread:
I found the following hashes:
0 Motion | 0 Custodial
[quote=“masterOfDisaster,
post:31, topic:2485, full:true”]
I don’t
know what timeline you have in mind when you are talking about the exchange
going live. I think of several months from now.[/quote]
4/6
months minimum.
[quote]You
are speaking of a planned dilution of shares?
This motion is going to stop it by burning up to 50,000 BKS.[/quote]
I’m speaking of the intention to dilute shares every time we need additional funds.
I’m for selling the shares we created now, and using revenue from the exchange
at later stages if we need additional funds (which I’m sure we’ll need). It’s a different
mindset if you create shares at 1 point and sell them till they’re all sold and
use revenue later on, compared to your idea of burning the remaining shares now
and recreating and selling (diluting) them when additional funds are needed.
But I dont think we’re going to see eye to eye so put the motion up for voting.
I would have preferred seeing some mention of a final burn date, and more precise language in the motion. Something like:
This motion confirms BlockShareholders’ desire to cease the sale of undistributed BKS. At 23:59 UTC on the 5th day after this motion passes no new buy offers will be accepted by B&C Exchange. For purposes of accounting, this time will be defined as the time a message is received by B&C Exchange, not when the message was sent. At 23:59 UTC on the 7th day after this motion passes all undistributed BKS that have not been requested for purchase will be burned. At 23:59 UTC on the 14th day after this motion passes all undistributed BKS will be burned, including those that had been reserved for purchase.
Is it possible to update it? I will be voting for your motion either way after reading the debate and discussion above.
As I have trouble with the motion hash I can very well adjust that. Let me check…
edit: I find the suggestions you made very helpful.
I made this the new text of the motion and amended the last sentence by a condition which I find necessary.
Are you familiar with hashing motions? The assistant doesn’t like me 
PM him
motion hash [motion]: Hash a motion into the preferred format.
I tried to.
Pasting the reply here and trying to verify it didn’t work…
click the link at the end of the message (the .txt file) and copy all of it
paste here
profit
Thank you, @willy! Let’s see how this worked. Meanwhile I’ve found this link, but I needed to struggle first
@assistant verify
Here are the verification results of all the motion and custodian hashes I could find in this thread:
I found the following hashes:
1 Motion | 0 Custodial
motion hash
Original Hash : f8bcd3d068a6b35c92902a8d57e0e773e4e35352
Calculated Hash : f8bcd3d068a6b35c92902a8d57e0e773e4e35352
The hash is good.