So first you say PTS wasn't sharedropped on and then admit I got my shares but I'm part of the confusion? You don't even know how to argue about this. You lost all the credibility just now. This is intentional from your part.
What you're saying it's different. PTS got sharedropped on, however that doesn't happen anymore. Those are 2 different things. Plus, vote, dns, ags and pts all got a stake on the new BTS. So now we have this new thing called BTS, that is shadropped on. Now you're free not to agree with that decision for whatever reasons you may have. But PTS got sharedropped on, a compensation was worked out to migrate everything to BTS, which is now the new shadrop target.
I can understand you might not agree with the merger but that's a different thing. I'm not confused. I knew what was going to happen as an informed holder who cared enough to check out for news. I'm not part of that widespread confusion. Don't include me. You are though, you're someone who seems not to agree with the merger and messing things up now, mixing facts and saying PTS was never sharedropped on when in fact it was. But you will just continue arguing about something that was already explained a thousand times so.. Good luck on your journey.
The only thing I don't like about this thread is, you could be a potentially confused holder with lots of questions. However, everything was clarified with you, this was repeated a thousand times and you're just insisting on this on purpose. It's like beating sense into a wall. It isn't worth keep up this discussion because you will continue, intentionally to spread those baseless arguments of yours.
Topic: There is still widespread confusion about BitShares PTS and Protoshares - page 4. (Read 8716 times)
September 24, 2015, 05:14:36 PM
September 24, 2015, 05:08:33 PM
Poor runpaint.
He has to go back to 18 months (a lifetime in this industry) to make up some controversy. No matter how many times this is explained by all sorts of informed people, he keeps posting the same misleading story.
Every post we've ever made on poor runpaint's obsession is available here and at bitsharestalk.org for those who care to do their own forensic analysis. You might find my epic series on The Origin of BitShares helpful - it was originally written for this forum. This summary has stood the test of time since January.
Or you could trust people from both sides to cherry pick their own quotes for you. Perhaps you can read them all in time to make an informed decision before the big launch on October 13.
So, as a practical matter, you might just ask yourself whether BitShares would have any kind of a following at all, much less be among the Top Five on coinmarketcap, if any of his conclusions were actually true.
He has to go back to 18 months (a lifetime in this industry) to make up some controversy. No matter how many times this is explained by all sorts of informed people, he keeps posting the same misleading story.
As Warf the Klingon would say, "He has no honor!"
Last year BitShares PTS and AGS were merged into BitShares where the promises continue to be kept.
Why exactly is this news now?
(Yes, that's what I think too.)
Why exactly is this news now?
(Yes, that's what I think too.)
Nobody else at the bitsharestalk.org forum is confused about this at all,
but he hopes he can confuse those who are just now starting to pay attention
to our rising market cap and trading volume
and all the buzz that goes with it.
but he hopes he can confuse those who are just now starting to pay attention
to our rising market cap and trading volume
and all the buzz that goes with it.
We are all focused on the countdown to BitShares 2.0 -- now entering its final exciting weeks.
Every post we've ever made on poor runpaint's obsession is available here and at bitsharestalk.org for those who care to do their own forensic analysis. You might find my epic series on The Origin of BitShares helpful - it was originally written for this forum. This summary has stood the test of time since January.
Or you could trust people from both sides to cherry pick their own quotes for you. Perhaps you can read them all in time to make an informed decision before the big launch on October 13.
But poor runpaint is hoping you won't get your own research done before you miss the opportunity.
So, as a practical matter, you might just ask yourself whether BitShares would have any kind of a following at all, much less be among the Top Five on coinmarketcap, if any of his conclusions were actually true.
Doesn't even pass a cursory sanity check, does it?
September 24, 2015, 04:30:36 PM
ProtoShares were never sharedropped on?
That's right. You're an excellent example of the widespread confusion that persists about BitShares PTS and Protoshares.
Protoshares was changed to BitShares PTS, before any sharedrops ever happened. All sharedrops through November 2014 went to BitShares PTS, as promised; but after that, the promise was not kept.
September 24, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on.
Protoshares were never sharedropped on. The name changed to BitShares PTS before the first sharedrop.
Quote
You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.
So it's a decentralized coin? Nobody owns it, nobody controls it, nobody can stop it from running?
And that's what Dan and Stan promised to use for all future drops, knowing that it wouldn't be under their control?
Then how can you say they decided to merge it, decided to end it, or that the coin "changed hands" and is being run by different people?
If it was decentralized from the start, and they never had control of it in the first place, then they knew that when they promised to distribute all future DACs to PTS holders.
ProtoShares were never sharedropped on? Then why did I get more BTS from Vote, DNS,etc and have NOTES on my wallet?
September 24, 2015, 10:29:22 AM
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on.
Protoshares were never sharedropped on. The name changed to BitShares PTS before the first sharedrop.
Quote
You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.
So it's a decentralized coin? Nobody owns it, nobody controls it, nobody can stop it from running?
And that's what Dan and Stan promised to use for all future drops, knowing that it wouldn't be under their control?
Then how can you say they decided to merge it, decided to end it, or that the coin "changed hands" and is being run by different people?
If it was decentralized from the start, and they never had control of it in the first place, then they knew that when they promised to distribute all future DACs to PTS holders.
September 24, 2015, 05:36:37 AM
HELP!!!
I bought some original PTS (like over a year ago) and some angel shares in the IPO. What do I have to do to claim the sharedrops? Assume I was in a coma and know nothing since mid 2014 (which is basically true).
I bought some original PTS (like over a year ago) and some angel shares in the IPO. What do I have to do to claim the sharedrops? Assume I was in a coma and know nothing since mid 2014 (which is basically true).
Import wallet.dat with original PTS and wallet.dat (or private key) from where you donated to AGS into BitShares client and you get your shares at balance.
But I suggest you to wait few weeks for BitShares 2.0 release and import your keys into new 2.0 wallet.
More info and place where you get help for all your BitShares questions: https://bitsharestalk.org
Wiki: http://wiki.bitshares.org
September 24, 2015, 02:32:23 AM
HELP!!!
I bought some original PTS (like over a year ago) and some angel shares in the IPO. What do I have to do to claim the sharedrops? Assume I was in a coma and know nothing since mid 2014 (which is basically true).
I bought some original PTS (like over a year ago) and some angel shares in the IPO. What do I have to do to claim the sharedrops? Assume I was in a coma and know nothing since mid 2014 (which is basically true).
September 23, 2015, 11:45:29 AM
Well it does say the blocks are synced
September 23, 2015, 10:48:27 AM
DE has arrived to ruin another thread. Meanwhile bts leaves nxt to dust like I predicted
September 23, 2015, 03:43:22 AM
And what is, Identibit, anyway?
According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?
Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.
Catch 22?
No. Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money. If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.
Put it another way. The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes. Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous. So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.
Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html
Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.
According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?
Quote from: Stan
Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.
Catch 22?
No. Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money. If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.
Put it another way. The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes. Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous. So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.
Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html
Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.
September 23, 2015, 03:40:31 AM
BitShares itself (not PTS) can and is being used for sharedropps already.
Cool story.
I'd like to see more sharedrops using Bitshares PTS snapshots, since Stan Larimer promised that every future DAC would be dropped to PTS holders.
Is that a broken promise from Bitshares, or will they use PTS for drops?
broken promises
And in a nut shell this explains why BTS is a nasty smelly fish.
PTS has been dead for a year, a DEAD wallet on cryptsy.
And all the shares promised by PTS are vaporware, or am I missing something?
But last time I checked I still don't have them nor see them traded/listed.
September 23, 2015, 03:10:46 AM
September 23, 2015, 01:16:09 AM
Here's a faithful BitShares community member, earlier this month in September 2015:
Quote from: dritz3r
I own AGS and the only reason I invested in BTS is to become the target of future sharedrops. That was the promise from Dan and Stan. AGS buyer had special place in their posts at that time. Now some 'mumble' listener or Forum member with BROWNIE.PTS have bigger share in future DACs. I invested xx BTC when price was 600USD. As post 28/2 investor I only received BTS dust and the worst thing is that most of them are still locked. We even did't have chance to sell AGS. Remember you returned PTS which was also the currency for buying AGS.
Dan and Stan is that all. Is that your final decision that Brownie.PTS worth more than AGS. Please answer me I'am really disappointed.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.360.html
September 23, 2015, 01:12:31 AM
And what is, Identibit, anyway?
According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?
Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.
Catch 22?
No. Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money. If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.
Put it another way. The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes. Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous. So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.
Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html
Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.
According to Stan Larimer, it means that all BitShares users will have to register their Social Security Number?
Quote from: Stan
Now, about KYC/AML. It is true that Identabit requires all accounts to have positive ID and you can't collect your sharedrop without an account.
Catch 22?
No. Remember the purpose of a sharedrop is to target people who will be your supporters, not to give away free money. If a person won't sign up with a verified account even to collect free money, then they are identifying themselves as people that Identabit wouldn't want to sharedrop on anyway.
Put it another way. The sharedrop is a way to get people motivated to overcome their natural crypto-reluctance to identify themselves, even though they do it every day to collect their paychecks and pay their taxes. Just because we want some place to keep our finances anonymous does not mean that every place has to be anonomyous. So, requiring us cryptoheads to register helps break down that barrier, and is thus a key strategy to get cryptoheads used to the concept of having a mix of anonymous and identity-based accounts. Knowing how to use both is a key to the complementary roles of BitShares and Identabit the way folks know the difference between savings and checking acounts today.
Those who are not willing to take that little leap, will never be Identabit supporters anyway and are thus self-judged to be likely dumpers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.375.html
Stan also says if you don't want the government to connect your identity with how many BitShares you own, don't claim Identibit.
September 23, 2015, 12:51:19 AM
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.
What do you mean? Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges? Why would they stop?
Quote
You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.
Dan did control PTS, and he held PTS. He could have shut it down by requiring a coin swap. Then no exchange would continue to list PTS, because there would be no coins to sell.
Instead of shutting it down, he let himself keep all his PTS. Then, amazingly, "someone" gave Dan millions of extra PTS, and then "someone" dumped millions of PTS on the market so the price went from .002BTC to .00000125BTC in 7 days (December 13 to December 20).
Quote
Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people.
Yes, there is widespread confusion regarding what actions have been taken and why.
Quote
Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people
But he gave them mostly to himself. And they're not to reward people - they're to control and threaten people, and to get more money for Dan and Stan.
Quote
One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple
Out of 8 million Brownie PTS, Dan kept 4 million for himself. Then he "distributed" 4 million to his brother, the other devs, his friends, and people who became obligated to give him something in return; only ~ 50 actual people from the community received shares, and some of them got a total of 333 Brownie PTS.
So what you mean is "one of the partners decided to give a huge percentage of the free coins to Dan and Stan."
Quote
Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?
How do you know they weren't meant for sharedrops? Because they told you?
If they weren't meant for it, do you think it's a coincidence that Dan "accidentally" got a bunch of money out of it?
If they weren't meant for it, why did Dan spend 5000BTS to register them as a User Issued Asset? For fun? OH WOW, but then he also got 10% of the entire supply of Identibit! How lucky for him, and he didn't even plan it!
Just like Dan "didn't want PTS to continue, but then someone gave him millions of extra shares."
Now Dan "didn't want BrowniePTS to be sharedropped, but then someone gave him millions of extra Identibit."
Brownie PTS was announced July 2, and on August 12 Identibit announced it was sharedropping to Brownie PTS. It is self-evident that Brownie PTS was entirely a way for Dan to get more money for himself, and that he worked together with Identibit to get more for himself through Brownie PTS.
September 23, 2015, 12:24:44 AM
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.
They could have required Protoshare holders to burn their coins if they wanted to be sharedropped Bitshares. That would have effectively destroyed Protoshares.
Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people. Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people who have gone above and beyond helping BTS to work. One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple because they have shown love for the project and would be the kind of ppl they would want to work on their project. Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?
"Brownie Points" are a pathetic attempt to keep everybody towing the line so the never-ending scam can continue to lure in the unsuspecting. What type of a person, especially one who supposedly believes in crypto, freedom and libertarianism, starts distributing and allowing a currency to be sold to others when they can be confiscated on a whim?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.0.html
Quote
I may also seize brownie points from any account if you fall out of favor and anyone who complains in any way about how Brownie Points are issued or how I use Brownie Points is certainly not in my favor and may lose any Brownie Points they have earned. -Bytemaster, Dan Larimer
September 22, 2015, 08:32:37 PM
Protoshares which became PTS where sharedropped on. That was there purpose and when the the share drop happened they were suppose to die.You have to understand, the developers (Dan) did not control PTS, it was a POW coin. After the share drop some ppl decided they wanted to keep it running. How do you stop a decentralize POW coin if people continue to mine it? That's why its confusing because there was no way to shutdown PTS after the drop.
Later on some ppl decided they wanted to upgrade PTS to use DPOS like BTS but they fail to get the support and the zombie PTS kept living.
Brownie PTS is actually Brownie Points. People started abbreviating the Points to PTS which of course has caused more confusion for new people. Brownies are user token on on Bitshares issued by Dan to reward the people who have gone above and beyond helping BTS to work. One of the partners decided that they wanted to drop on these peple because they have shown love for the project and would be the kind of ppl they would want to work on their project. Again brownies were not meant to be sharedropped on, but how do you stop somebody from doing it?
September 22, 2015, 06:12:58 PM
You didn't do due dilligence. You expected BitShares PTS to be sharedropped on when everyone knew they wouldn't work like that anymore.
Everyone knew how it was going to work?
You yourself still don't know how it works, which you proved in this confusing conversation. Everyone here has given a different opinion about what happened with PTS and how it works now.
September 22, 2015, 05:59:19 PM
You didn't do due dilligence. You expected BitShares PTS to be sharedropped on when everyone knew they wouldn't work like that anymore. Annoucements were made before hand regarding the merger. Yeah, plans have changed, but so what? You had time to know about that. Only someone who didn't check for info did what you did.
September 22, 2015, 05:57:09 PM
That's going to be really tough when Bitcoin2.O comes out and the Larimers have to do what the community votes them to do or they are fired.
Unless they have more votes than everyone else.
They've rigged voting so they will always come out on top.
DPoS is not decentralized. Here is why:
For all those interested in how a few of the wealthiest Bitshares' stakeholders can effectively rig the mass majority of the elections, here is how.
Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers. We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.
Then there's the question of what they can collude about. We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.
That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash. Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake. Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates. This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections. This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders. As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.
Let's give an example. Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate. They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose. Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote. The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%). If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position. Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position. By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake. In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.
Does this sound fair to you?!
It doesn't matter if you collect delegates' SSNs, driver's licenses, birth certificates and thumbprints, Bitshares' DPoS mechanism will always be susceptible to manipulation. You have introduced a "social construct" (aka voting) which turns Bitshares' delegates into a "government of the wealthy". No one will ever know what type of "behind-the-scenes" politics is going on which results in which delegates are selected.
Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals. The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position. Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders. This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner. This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process. The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process. This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".
Because you have instituted this ridiculous charade into chain security, all your figures on "decentralization" and "speed of decentralization" are speculative and assume that all 101 delegates are unique, non-colluding individuals. The fact is all these delegates are not going to compete against each other for a position. Who will become a delegate and control the delegate selection process are the wealthiest stakeholders. This will be accomplished in a quid pro quo manner. This means that really Bitshares is less decentralized than NXT because they will be able to form political/business coalitions which imo will result in them dominating the delegate selection process. The wealthiest stakeholders in Bitshares can do this very easily because it is an "Approval Voting" process. This allows stakeholders to put the entire weight of their stake behind each and every delegate they approve. The Bitshares' devs will deny this to the very end because they are part of this "ruling elite".
I think I could make a pretty good argument that delegates' "real world" identities being known by the community doesn't really matter or prevent a "Sybil attack". Imo, what would constitute a "Sybil attack" is the collusion of delegates' motives. I'm also pretty positive that the colluding delegates wouldn't "harm" the Bitshares' ecosystem, but instead use their power to manipulate delegate elections to capitalize on the delegate positions. Everybody can know everyones' name, but it's impossible to know their true intentions.
Any block chain has the problem that a few big players can collude, whether they are large stakeholders or large hashpoolers. We dilute that down to under one percent influence per delegate, max.
Then there's the question of what they can collude about. We can all observe whether they are performing their very limited block signing job to spec or not. We can look at their published price feeds. They have no other power.
That's true that in all blockchains stakeholders/hashpower can collude, but they can only collude in a one-to-one proportion to their stake/hash. Since approval voting is used in delegate elections, I maintain that large stakeholders can effectively collude to a multiple proportion of their stake. Whereby, for example, 20% of colluding stake can disproportionately influence the elections of more than 20% of the delegates. This leads to a coalition of a few wealthy stakeholders being able to determine the outcomes of the mass majority of the delegate elections. This is especially true considering that voter turnout of smaller stakeholders will be lower than the voter turnout of larger stakeholders. As I said previously, it would be the intention of the colluding wealthy stakeholders to not harm Bitshares, but to elect delegates from which they would derive monetary gain in excess to their proportion of stake in the system at the expense of all other stakeholders.
Let's give an example. Remember, in "approval voting", voters do not just vote for one delegate. They can select as many or as few delegates as they wish and the entire weight of their stake counts towards each delegate they choose. Say for instance that the top delegate has 50% of the vote and the 101st delegate has 30% of the vote. The voting spread percentage is 20% (50%-30%). If the votes per delegate is a linear increase according to delegate rank, an additional 10% of the stake vote will move the 101st delegate to the 50th position. Likewise, a removal of 10% of the stake vote from the lower 50 delegates will result in them losing their delegate position. By strategically voting, a few wealthy stakeholders can influence a disproportionate number of delegate positions in relation to their actual stake. In this example, a coalition of 10% stake was able to control 50% of the delegates.
Does this sound fair to you?!
Jump to: