Bytemaster: please read "Crossing The Chasm" by Geoffrey A. Moore

[Method-X]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

That book doesn't apply well because unless products in that book are like Bittorrent, Napster, and other digital only products, it means you cannot really use the traditional techniques.

I'm not saying the book shouldn't be read but more that just reading a book isn't enough. Read case studies, see how other disruptive peer to peer technologies spread. Bitshares isn't a traditional business and so you have to understand that because it's disruptive it will have to be much more viral.

Napster was viral because music sharing was already a cultural norm. Napster was able to ride on the cultural norm of sharing to make it go viral. Bitshares hasn't figured out what it's cultural norms at yet and seems to be trying to market itself as if it is Apple when it's nothing like Apple in terms of how it's structured.

So the marketing of Apple doesn't make sense when Apple is clearly part of the establishment at this point while Bitshares is disruptive. iTunes came alone because the establishment was terrified of Napster and so it chose iTunes because iTunes was more centralized. This means Apple promoted centralization over innovation to get maximum profit.

In our case we are decentralized and while we might want maximum profit like Apple we cannot do it the same way. We don't have the ability to make the sort of partnerships to make it possible yet and even if we did I doubt the majority of shareholders would want to do it. I think Bitshares at least early on is going to be seen more like MegaUpload, Napster, Bittorrent, or something similar, so the ideal way to market it is to take it viral.

If Bitshares doesn't go viral it's not going to even get the attention of the establishment.

I agree with everything in your post (besides Crossing The Chasm not being relevant). You should read the book.

 - Virality is key.
 - Engineering publicity is key.

[luckybit]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

That book doesn't apply well because unless products in that book are like Bittorrent, Napster, and other digital only products, it means you cannot really use the traditional techniques.

I'm not saying the book shouldn't be read but more that just reading a book isn't enough. Read case studies, see how other disruptive peer to peer technologies spread. Bitshares isn't a traditional business and so you have to understand that because it's disruptive it will have to be much more viral.

Napster was viral because music sharing was already a cultural norm. Napster was able to ride on the cultural norm of sharing to make it go viral. Bitshares hasn't figured out what it's cultural norms at yet and seems to be trying to market itself as if it is Apple when it's nothing like Apple in terms of how it's structured.

So the marketing of Apple doesn't make sense when Apple is clearly part of the establishment at this point while Bitshares is disruptive. iTunes came alone because the establishment was terrified of Napster and so it chose iTunes because iTunes was more centralized. This means Apple promoted centralization over innovation to get maximum profit.

In our case we are decentralized and while we might want maximum profit like Apple we cannot do it the same way. We don't have the ability to make the sort of partnerships to make it possible yet and even if we did I doubt the majority of shareholders would want to do it. I think Bitshares at least early on is going to be seen more like MegaUpload, Napster, Bittorrent, or something similar, so the ideal way to market it is to take it viral.

If Bitshares doesn't go viral it's not going to even get the attention of the establishment.

[Empirical1.1]

The Early Market, where buyers are early adopters seeking to get ahead of the herd by taking a chance with a promising but unproven technology.

Crossing the Chasm, where buyers are “pragmatists in pain,” stuck with a problem business process and willing to take a chance on something new, provided it is directly focused on solving their specific use case.

Inside the Tornado, where buyers are pragmatists going with the herd, the technology now being proven, its value substantially superior to the status quo, and the forcing function being fear of getting left behind.

On Main Street, where buyers are maintaining their investments in a now broadly adopted technology, looking for better value and lower total cost of ownership.   

Thanks for article link

It is critical when crossing the chasm that you focus exclusively on achieving a dominant position in one or two narrowly bounded market segments. If you do not commit fully to this goal, the odds are overwhelmingly against you ever arriving in the mainstream market. 

I think many here instinctively perceive that we're not at the main street stage yet and that targeting niches is key. It looks like the marketing message at least may be moving a bit in that direction now which is good.

[luckybit]

In my opinion we need 100 serious developers. In my opinion if we structure right it will be very easy to get them. Developers want to know that they can have stability to work on the project for at least a year so how much would it cost to pay 100 developers for 1 years?

At $100,000 a year per developer multiplied by 100 you have a cost of $10,000,000.

So for $10,000,000 you could have 100 core developers going up against NXT and Bitcoin. Right now it seems like $10,000,000 is difficult to raise but consider how easy that will be to raise when the market cap is rising.

I like where you're going with this, but 100 chefs won't bake you a faster cake.  Neither can 100 chefs run a restaurant by themselves. Someone needs to take the orders and clean the tables.  When I see Toast doing a build at midnight, what I also see is a chef busing his own table.  Actually, what I think you really got right is the 100k a year figure.

Personally, what I really think this project needs, is a commitment to AGILE methodology - not just an ad hoc, ragtag collection of hackers and coders.

It's not one restaurant but a franchise. We need 100 chefs so we can have half a dozen DACs get the right support. Video game companies routinely hire 100 developers and what they build isn't as complex.

Assuming we want 10-12 DACs then I estimate at 10 developers each it would cost 100 developers. Am I that far off?

In my opinion we need 100 serious developers. In my opinion if we structure right it will be very easy to get them. Developers want to know that they can have stability to work on the project for at least a year so how much would it cost to pay 100 developers for 1 years?

At $100,000 a year per developer multiplied by 100 you have a cost of $10,000,000.

So for $10,000,000 you could have 100 core developers going up against NXT and Bitcoin. Right now it seems like $10,000,000 is difficult to raise but consider how easy that will be to raise when the market cap is rising.

I like where you're going with this, but 100 chefs won't bake you a faster cake.  Neither can 100 chefs run a restaurant by themselves. Someone needs to take the orders and clean the tables.  When I see Toast doing a build at midnight, what I also see is a chef busing his own table.  Actually, what I think you really got right is the 100k a year figure.

Personally, what I really think this project needs, is a commitment to AGILE methodology - not just an ad hoc, ragtag collection of hackers and coders.

Effecient organization can come later, right now we need to focus on acquiring the raw talent and acquiring the crypto-wide market cap. If we get the majority of developers onboard we will essentially "51% attack" the entire industry and can absorb the market cap much faster than you'd expect, because investors will realize nothing else can keep up with the pace of our development - even if it has to take 1 or 2 years to get things fully organized and get the pace up and running at full efficiency. We all need this consolidation to have the industry regroup and fight back against the creeping regulation, and the centralization of institutions such as Coinbase, Circle and the mega-exchanges. It will be like a new chapter in the history of the blockchain, and think I the smartest people in the community will understand and agree with the need for this, and quickly jump over.

You don't think all these VC-funded startups in the crypto arena have the means to attract top talent?

They do, and that is why we need our own structures. It's going to be the VCs vs the cooperatives.

We should side with the cooperatives and put the community first. VCs make the already rich a lot richer but a lot of VC people will be people who didn't have any involvement in building the community, the technology, the culture, but who just come after it's built and buy everything up.

Why not have ownership of our own community? If people want to join then they join us or partner but if VCs own all the legal entities in the industry then what does that say?

VCs are going to let us cook them lunch and dinner. They'll show up at the last minute to eat it all and but the community wont benefit from capital infusion from VCs unless it's set up to benefit from it. VCs probably are going to buy out the delegates, watch and see.

[GaltReport]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

Reading trhrough Amazon reviews looks like a must read for anyone who is to be taken seriously while discussing marketing on this forum!

...BTC is struggling with mass adoption because the vast majority of humans can only cope with tech evolution to revolution...

It really is one of the best marketing books out there, when it comes to big picture strategy any disruptive startup should employ.

For anyone who is interested in a brief overview, check out this article.

Download the pdf here.

Hmm, yummy pdf !!  Thank You.

[kisa]

Thx vm for the links!

[Method-X]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

Reading trhrough Amazon reviews looks like a must read for anyone who is to be taken seriously while discussing marketing on this forum!

...BTC is struggling with mass adoption because the vast majority of humans can only cope with tech evolution to revolution...

It really is one of the best marketing books out there, when it comes to big picture strategy any disruptive startup should employ.

For anyone who is interested in a brief overview, check out this article.

Download the pdf here.

[kisa]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

Reading trhrough Amazon reviews looks like a must read for anyone who is to be taken seriously while discussing marketing on this forum!

...BTC is struggling with mass adoption because the vast majority of humans can only cope with tech evolution not revolution...

[Method-X]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.

[speedy]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Right! Lock him up somewhere so he can code!

I didnt mean that 

[emski]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.

Right! Lock him up somewhere so he can code!

[Rune]

In my opinion we need 100 serious developers. In my opinion if we structure right it will be very easy to get them. Developers want to know that they can have stability to work on the project for at least a year so how much would it cost to pay 100 developers for 1 years?

At $100,000 a year per developer multiplied by 100 you have a cost of $10,000,000.

So for $10,000,000 you could have 100 core developers going up against NXT and Bitcoin. Right now it seems like $10,000,000 is difficult to raise but consider how easy that will be to raise when the market cap is rising.

I like where you're going with this, but 100 chefs won't bake you a faster cake.  Neither can 100 chefs run a restaurant by themselves. Someone needs to take the orders and clean the tables.  When I see Toast doing a build at midnight, what I also see is a chef busing his own table.  Actually, what I think you really got right is the 100k a year figure.

Personally, what I really think this project needs, is a commitment to AGILE methodology - not just an ad hoc, ragtag collection of hackers and coders.

Effecient organization can come later, right now we need to focus on acquiring the raw talent and acquiring the crypto-wide market cap. If we get the majority of developers onboard we will essentially "51% attack" the entire industry and can absorb the market cap much faster than you'd expect, because investors will realize nothing else can keep up with the pace of our development - even if it has to take 1 or 2 years to get things fully organized and get the pace up and running at full efficiency. We all need this consolidation to have the industry regroup and fight back against the creeping regulation, and the centralization of institutions such as Coinbase, Circle and the mega-exchanges. It will be like a new chapter in the history of the blockchain, and think I the smartest people in the community will understand and agree with the need for this, and quickly jump over.

You don't think all these VC-funded startups in the crypto arena have the means to attract top talent?

We will always be able to offer a higher pay. A developer will always be better applied working directly to improve the blockchain itself and fixing all inefficiency, rather than working to monetise one or more of its inefficiencies.

[donkeypong]

In my opinion we need 100 serious developers. In my opinion if we structure right it will be very easy to get them. Developers want to know that they can have stability to work on the project for at least a year so how much would it cost to pay 100 developers for 1 years?

At $100,000 a year per developer multiplied by 100 you have a cost of $10,000,000.

So for $10,000,000 you could have 100 core developers going up against NXT and Bitcoin. Right now it seems like $10,000,000 is difficult to raise but consider how easy that will be to raise when the market cap is rising.

I like where you're going with this, but 100 chefs won't bake you a faster cake.  Neither can 100 chefs run a restaurant by themselves. Someone needs to take the orders and clean the tables.  When I see Toast doing a build at midnight, what I also see is a chef busing his own table.  Actually, what I think you really got right is the 100k a year figure.

Personally, what I really think this project needs, is a commitment to AGILE methodology - not just an ad hoc, ragtag collection of hackers and coders.

Effecient organization can come later, right now we need to focus on acquiring the raw talent and acquiring the crypto-wide market cap. If we get the majority of developers onboard we will essentially "51% attack" the entire industry and can absorb the market cap much faster than you'd expect, because investors will realize nothing else can keep up with the pace of our development - even if it has to take 1 or 2 years to get things fully organized and get the pace up and running at full efficiency. We all need this consolidation to have the industry regroup and fight back against the creeping regulation, and the centralization of institutions such as Coinbase, Circle and the mega-exchanges. It will be like a new chapter in the history of the blockchain, and think I the smartest people in the community will understand and agree with the need for this, and quickly jump over.

You don't think all these VC-funded startups in the crypto arena have the means to attract top talent?

[Rune]

In my opinion we need 100 serious developers. In my opinion if we structure right it will be very easy to get them. Developers want to know that they can have stability to work on the project for at least a year so how much would it cost to pay 100 developers for 1 years?

At $100,000 a year per developer multiplied by 100 you have a cost of $10,000,000.

So for $10,000,000 you could have 100 core developers going up against NXT and Bitcoin. Right now it seems like $10,000,000 is difficult to raise but consider how easy that will be to raise when the market cap is rising.

I like where you're going with this, but 100 chefs won't bake you a faster cake.  Neither can 100 chefs run a restaurant by themselves. Someone needs to take the orders and clean the tables.  When I see Toast doing a build at midnight, what I also see is a chef busing his own table.  Actually, what I think you really got right is the 100k a year figure.

Personally, what I really think this project needs, is a commitment to AGILE methodology - not just an ad hoc, ragtag collection of hackers and coders.

Effecient organization can come later, right now we need to focus on acquiring the raw talent and acquiring the crypto-wide market cap. If we get the majority of developers onboard we will essentially "51% attack" the entire industry and can absorb the market cap much faster than you'd expect, because investors will realize nothing else can keep up with the pace of our development - even if it has to take 1 or 2 years to get things fully organized and get the pace up and running at full efficiency. We all need this consolidation to have the industry regroup and fight back against the creeping regulation, and the centralization of institutions such as Coinbase, Circle and the mega-exchanges. It will be like a new chapter in the history of the blockchain, and think I the smartest people in the community will understand and agree with the need for this, and quickly jump over.

[speedy]

No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.