Power of the community: Price recovery action 1

[cube]

Didn't like this.. didn't iike that.. this was your mistake.. I told you so... Could'a Should'a Would'a Didn't... looking back you did this wrong.

Ok.. I covered everything for everyone just now.. so how about talking about what to do next?

What can YOU do next that will make BitShares Better?

Whether the points or valid or not.. where do we go from 'here'?

Personally I am working almost every day to make Bitshares better by improving the wallet or adding features to Bitsharesblocks.

I agree we need to look forward and contribute positively, but it's hard to figure out how to go forward if one does not know the past and analyzes what went wrong. That being said, harping on about old mistakes is not constructive either.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana. 

Although the words from NewMine are hash, they induce the community into self-reflection.  Recognising and facing up to past mistakes help us to make a better future.

[onceuponatime]

dev0.nikolai   As far as I can tell, he no longer is a Dev with BTS but with PLAY/NOTE

marketing.methodx   Marketing group. MethodX gave up the reigns to others and they are putting out a newsletter.

argentina-marketing.matt608    Marketing delegate who has left and supposedly handed the reigns over to a different group that include elmato, another 100% delegate.

delegate-dev2.btsnow           Redundant delegate

dev-trial.misc.nikolai   This one is funny and I think is an inside joke with Toast. The guy this was intended for is gone, the fees paid off and was supposed be taken offline. But here it is still there banking money.

dacx.baozou   Crowd funded and VC funded, why do they need a delegate. (One of the elusive Chinese whales perhaps?)

provisional.bitscape   Redundant delegate

I think we should start spring cleaning, above are a selected group of delegates that we can use as a starting point. Some of these may be worth keeping, but lets hear the justification of why that should be. Without legitimate justification for their continuance, let us move to promote removal of these delegates.

What research have YOU done on this (or are you waiting for others to do it for you?)

Which is not correct. The research I have done. 1,2 5 and 6 seem pretty accurate!

Which one is not correct ?

Even if he gave some (but not all) correct information on 4, spreading FUD on the other 3 is counterproductive to building confidence in BitShares. However, building confidence, or helping correct problems, has not been his motivation in my estimation.

[Tuck Fheman]

large parts of the community overreacting to Bytemaster's comments.

For what it's worth, I feel the continued decline in the price is simply a result of continually over-promising and under-delivering, of being unable to clearly communicate what Bitshares is and how it works (hello whitepapers?), and a lack of focus on making the client performance as good as possible.

+110%

[zerosum]

I also thought the merger was a terrible idea, I thought so at the time and still do, but I also think it was forced by large parts of the community overreacting to Bytemaster's comments. He has a tendency of overselling things, and the alleged VOTE secret sauce coming to rule the world was definitely an example of that, apparently there was no such thing.. It joins other incredible developments like imminent fiat on-ramps and "marketing push".

Even so, I still think delegate dilution was a good idea, and blaming delegates for the fall in price is just retarded. NewMine's list of what delegates do just shows how little he actually follows things around here, he does not know who the main developer for the GUI is, he doesn't know that elmato is developing a mobile wallet etc..

So let's look at the facts of delegate dilution: We currently have 29 100% delegates who collectively make 124000 BTS per day. If all of them were to dump it every day (which is not the case), that adds an incredible 700$ of selling pressure. Daily volumes for BTS in this current dry period is around 40k$, so we're talking 1.75% of daily volume.. So can everyone please shut up about delegates dumping being the cause of the price decline? IMO if they (we) weren't here, things would be looking far worse.

For what it's worth, I feel the continued decline in the price is simply a result of continually over-promising and under-delivering, of being unable to clearly communicate what Bitshares is and how it works (hello whitepapers?), and a lack of focus on making the client performance as good as possible.

It all ties up together.

Vote and DNS would have had funding from paid delegates and the remainder of the post 2/28/14 AGS donations.  We could not fairly honor those later donors by spending their money improving BTSX, so we had to work on VOTE and DNS.  Fair is fair.  So without the merger, BTSX, VOTE and DNS would all have had competing BitAssets splitting the market depth.  And BTSX would have not had ongoing funding like VOTE and DNS.  They would be what BitShares is today (self-funding with all the talent working as their delegates).

Without revealing the still-potent, still secret Vote "secret sauce", the astute student has been given lots of opportunities to read between the lines:   https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15180.msg196071.html#msg196071

One could also argue that the decline is because we stopped promising.  Without constant reminding, people tend to forget that we are still committed to the grand vision and working on it without talking more about it till it's done.
As for underdelivering, go back and look at what we were promising when the AGS program started.  We have WAY overdelivered since those days.

We are in a transition period where we are moving from talking about great stuff months in advance to talking about it only once its delivered.  This naturally causes a multi-month lull in excitement until things that were once out on the horizon move into our rear view mirror.

But nothing stops those of you with good memories from talking about it.   

I'm sorry but you're doing it again, hinting at something great on the horizon without providing anything of substance to back it up. We've been made promises like that for the last 6 months at least and personally I'm getting tired of it. The VOTE video in that comment has a grand total of 260 views, at least three of which are mine.. I don't like being all negative but considering the negative impact the merger of VOTE has had, as well as the major financial "donation" made to AK through the merger, I really don't think we got a good deal..

I have to add that I also feel you're rewriting history when you present the merger as something nice and orderly like that, at least to me it felt more like a knee-jerk reaction to a market panic caused by an offhand remark by Bytemaster. An important part of the original vision died in that knee-jerk reaction, the idea of a multitude of DACs fiercely competing or peacefully coexisting, focusing on different niches in a darwinian environment where only the strongest would survive. I for one loved that vision and was sad to see it disappear.

Now I'm not saying we have a bad product or that you haven't delivered with Bitshares, I love Bitshares and use the client almost every day and generally think it's an amazing product. But claims such as the alleged VOTE secret sauce and how DNS was super-easy and would be implemented in no time at all are where I think you over-promised.

[Tuck Fheman]

Wonder what would happen if we could 'vote out' users in forums.

I wonder if there's some historic precedence we could research and find out? hmmm

[zerosum]

dev0.nikolai   As far as I can tell, he no longer is a Dev with BTS but with PLAY/NOTE

marketing.methodx   Marketing group. MethodX gave up the reigns to others and they are putting out a newsletter.

argentina-marketing.matt608    Marketing delegate who has left and supposedly handed the reigns over to a different group that include elmato, another 100% delegate.

delegate-dev2.btsnow           Redundant delegate

dev-trial.misc.nikolai   This one is funny and I think is an inside joke with Toast. The guy this was intended for is gone, the fees paid off and was supposed be taken offline. But here it is still there banking money.

dacx.baozou   Crowd funded and VC funded, why do they need a delegate. (One of the elusive Chinese whales perhaps?)

provisional.bitscape   Redundant delegate

I think we should start spring cleaning, above are a selected group of delegates that we can use as a starting point. Some of these may be worth keeping, but lets hear the justification of why that should be. Without legitimate justification for their continuance, let us move to promote removal of these delegates.

What research have YOU done on this (or are you waiting for others to do it for you?)

Which is not correct. The research I have done. 1,2 5 and 6 seem pretty accurate!

Which one is not correct ?

[Stan]

We don't see PLAY or MUSIC having their own version of bitUSD.  In fact, you see them using the BitShares version.

I haven't been following Play lately, but who says they, especially Music, aren't/won't be using their own version of BitUSD? The Music blockchain isn't ready yet, so how can you make that claim? Unless there is some huge news I somehow missed, I am sure Music will have its own version of BitUSD.

I see no reason why this would not have been the case with Vote and DNS. In fact, I think it would have left it open for the market to fairly value each separate chain AND the service it planned to provide.  You also would have had people like Toast working on DNS and bringing in a team of people very passionate about one thing: Decentralized DNS.  That DAC would have funded the building of Decentralized DNS DACs that easily plug into future BitShares browsers, wallets, apps...etc.  Each would have drawn in different demographics and then as they all grew, they could start implementing feature sets employed in other DACs.  And each chain would have its own marketing delegates with their own focused message. 

Yeah that's great except they all need a stable foundation blockchain to build on and also all either need or greatly benefit from the BitAsset system as well. Bidding on domain names isn't that great when you have to account for the price volatility of your DNS token over the 30 day bid period, for example. Using BitUSD would be better. Music lovers would rather pay 99 cents for a song rather than 1500 NOTE today but then 1800 NOTE tomorrow, for example. Great so they can each have their own BitAssets except now they split liquidity across many chains making each of the BitAssets worse than they would be if they were all on the same chain.

Okay, so let's have them all use the same BitAsset as the one on the BitShares X chain. Well this is a technically tricky but doable with some trade-offs. I have discussed a way this could be done in the past and have since become a stronger and stronger advocate of this approach. But even then, it takes lots of coding and testing before such functionality would be available for use. So then core devs need to work on that. But that work is reusable on all other blockchains, so it would make the most sense for the BitShares X devs to work on that and then when it is done all the other chains can adopt that technology. And their chains aren't really 1.0 ready until that feature is ready. They can work on the other business logic of the chain in parallel though if they can get the funding to do so.

So now you have BitShares X devs working on improving the foundations of the blockchain and BitAsset system. They are improving the performance, eliminating bugs, improving the market engine, and developing the new features needed to allow other chains to use BTSX's BitAssets. How long would this take and what resources would it require? Well we know at least how long it would take all of our core devs working on all but the last thing. That is because that is exactly what they are working on right now and they are still not done. It all took WAY longer than originally promised. That's what happens in software development. Also, it basically took all of the money I3 had raised (in fact, with all the price drops, how much longer do the core devs have before their year-end bonuses aren't enough to even pay them an unsustainably low wage for their services?) and some small additional money from delegate dilution pay.

Would there be enough money available to allow them to finish that task much less any extra to devote to OTHER devs working on VOTE and DNS functionality in parallel? Where would that money come from? Crowdfunding similar DPOS blockchain related projects would likely just be taking away buy pressure from BTSX, which would reduce the delegate dilution pay for the core devs working on the foundation of the blockchain. We are a small group and not growing fast enough. But to grow fast enough we need a compelling product to sell to others who haven't bought into the vision yet. That means going after the really high value services and providing those services in a very high quality way. A decentralized exchange on a very robust platform with a fast lightweight client that looks beautiful and is easy to use is what is required. This is part of the foundation that other DACs depend on. It makes no sense to waste limited resources (money and dev talent) on things that are not going to grow the token's value fast enough. We need the token value to grow because that is the source of revenue to pay for more devs who will then be able to work on many interesting different blockchain services and features in parallel.

So the way I see it, the economics of the situation would have forced DNS and VOTE to languish anyway until enough of the BitShares X foundation was built. What is worse is that they would have avoided paying for the cost of the foundation that they use since the dilution would have been for BTSX only and not of the other DACs' tokens. I think the BitShares ecosystem would have not looked very differently in terms of functionality available or user adoption at this point in time, and I would even say we would have most likely been worse off than we currently are.

At this point, I think we just need to finish getting the core blockchain technology and the client software polished to get user adoption to increase and hopefully have the price of BTS increase, and then use those extra resources paid for through delegate dilution of the higher BTS price to build the functionality necessary to allow third-parties to concurrently build DApps and/or child DACs on the BitShares platform with minimal effort while using BTS's BitAssets and even leveraging the consensus/networking systems of the BTS blockchain (basically "Turing complete scripts" but done by allowing the validators or "child DAC delegates" to run arbitrary sandboxed executable code that implements the business logic of their DAC/DApp and uses the BTS blockchain and optionally their own nested blockchains, which are committed to the BTS parent blockchain, as the persistent data store for their DAC/DApp). Once this foundation is set, my hope is that we can have developer resources explode and see many third-parties concurrently working on new features like prediction markets, bond markets, voting, DNS, etc.

A much appreciated dose of clear thinking!

BitShares will prosper most if it can act as a platform where many business models drive demand for BitShares and generate transaction fees.

There are many benefits to integrating multiple business models onto one block chain.  Remember all these?

What is a SuperDAC?

SuperDAC - noun - soup-er-dak
A Decentralized Autonomous Company (DAC) providing common services that support layering of other DAC business models onto a common public ledger for the sake of shared network effect.

The need to merge our various DACs into a single "SuperDAC" was based on the realization that they all needed a whole bunch of common services that are much less effective if they aren't common services:

• A unified basket of stable, robust global currencies (bitAssets)
  
• A unified set of well compensated, best-of-breed delegates.
• A unified name system.
• A unified secure messaging system.
• A unified set of on and off ramps - portals to the fiat world.
• A unified marketing message.
• A unified consensus-based governing system.
• A unified family of tools and wallets.
• A unified way for newcomers to make instant friends with everyone already there.
• A built-in venture capital system where you can compete for start-up funds - democratically.

New business developers (DAC engineers) shouldn't want to reinvent these things any more than I would want to reinvent my computer's device drivers and operating system.  And what sense would it make to have different competing operating systems, each with a subset of drivers and services?

[Stan]

What I do not like so much is delegates leaving and 'handing' off their position to someone else. Do we not have a way for a 100% delegate to reduce his or her pay? If you are hired, and you decide to move on, it would be nice if you reduced your pay to 3% and continue signing blocks, inform everyone and ask to be voted out.

Another way your could choose to look at it is that, as we grow, delegates are destined to become small businesses funding perhaps several people to accomplish their tasks.  Under that model, people might come and go while the business remains in good graces.  If that is not philosophically objectionable to you, then having delegates find someone to "take over" for them on the mission they were hired to do (as a proto-business) seems like it could be perfectly natural.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

We don't see PLAY or MUSIC having their own version of bitUSD.  In fact, you see them using the BitShares version.

I haven't been following Play lately, but who says they, especially Music, aren't/won't be using their own version of BitUSD? The Music blockchain isn't ready yet, so how can you make that claim? Unless there is some huge news I somehow missed, I am sure Music will have its own version of BitUSD.

I see no reason why this would not have been the case with Vote and DNS. In fact, I think it would have left it open for the market to fairly value each separate chain AND the service it planned to provide.  You also would have had people like Toast working on DNS and bringing in a team of people very passionate about one thing: Decentralized DNS.  That DAC would have funded the building of Decentralized DNS DACs that easily plug into future BitShares browsers, wallets, apps...etc.  Each would have drawn in different demographics and then as they all grew, they could start implementing feature sets employed in other DACs.  And each chain would have its own marketing delegates with their own focused message. 

Yeah that's great except they all need a stable foundation blockchain to build on and also all either need or greatly benefit from the BitAsset system as well. Bidding on domain names isn't that great when you have to account for the price volatility of your DNS token over the 30 day bid period, for example. Using BitUSD would be better. Music lovers would rather pay 99 cents for a song rather than 1500 NOTE today but then 1800 NOTE tomorrow, for example. Great so they can each have their own BitAssets except now they split liquidity across many chains making each of the BitAssets worse than they would be if they were all on the same chain.

Okay, so let's have them all use the same BitAsset as the one on the BitShares X chain. Well this is a technically tricky but doable with some trade-offs. I have discussed a way this could be done in the past and have since become a stronger and stronger advocate of this approach. But even then, it takes lots of coding and testing before such functionality would be available for use. So then core devs need to work on that. But that work is reusable on all other blockchains, so it would make the most sense for the BitShares X devs to work on that and then when it is done all the other chains can adopt that technology. And their chains aren't really 1.0 ready until that feature is ready. They can work on the other business logic of the chain in parallel though if they can get the funding to do so.

So now you have BitShares X devs working on improving the foundations of the blockchain and BitAsset system. They are improving the performance, eliminating bugs, improving the market engine, and developing the new features needed to allow other chains to use BTSX's BitAssets. How long would this take and what resources would it require? Well we know at least how long it would take all of our core devs working on all but the last thing. That is because that is exactly what they are working on right now and they are still not done. It all took WAY longer than originally promised. That's what happens in software development. Also, it basically took all of the money I3 had raised (in fact, with all the price drops, how much longer do the core devs have before their year-end bonuses aren't enough to even pay them an unsustainably low wage for their services?) and some small additional money from delegate dilution pay.

Would there be enough money available to allow them to finish that task much less any extra to devote to OTHER devs working on VOTE and DNS functionality in parallel? Where would that money come from? Crowdfunding similar DPOS blockchain related projects would likely just be taking away buy pressure from BTSX, which would reduce the delegate dilution pay for the core devs working on the foundation of the blockchain. We are a small group and not growing fast enough. But to grow fast enough we need a compelling product to sell to others who haven't bought into the vision yet. That means going after the really high value services and providing those services in a very high quality way. A decentralized exchange on a very robust platform with a fast lightweight client that looks beautiful and is easy to use is what is required. This is part of the foundation that other DACs depend on. It makes no sense to waste limited resources (money and dev talent) on things that are not going to grow the token's value fast enough. We need the token value to grow because that is the source of revenue to pay for more devs who will then be able to work on many interesting different blockchain services and features in parallel.

So the way I see it, the economics of the situation would have forced DNS and VOTE to languish anyway until enough of the BitShares X foundation was built. What is worse is that they would have avoided paying for the cost of the foundation that they use since the dilution would have been for BTSX only and not of the other DACs' tokens. I think the BitShares ecosystem would have not looked very differently in terms of functionality available or user adoption at this point in time, and I would even say we would have most likely been worse off than we currently are.

At this point, I think we just need to finish getting the core blockchain technology and the client software polished to get user adoption to increase and hopefully have the price of BTS increase, and then use those extra resources paid for through delegate dilution of the higher BTS price to build the functionality necessary to allow third-parties to concurrently build DApps and/or child DACs on the BitShares platform with minimal effort while using BTS's BitAssets and even leveraging the consensus/networking systems of the BTS blockchain (basically "Turing complete scripts" but done by allowing the validators or "child DAC delegates" to run arbitrary sandboxed executable code that implements the business logic of their DAC/DApp and uses the BTS blockchain and optionally their own nested blockchains, which are committed to the BTS parent blockchain, as the persistent data store for their DAC/DApp). Once this foundation is set, my hope is that we can have developer resources explode and see many third-parties concurrently working on new features like prediction markets, bond markets, voting, DNS, etc.

Well said and great analysis 

[mint chocolate chip]

dev0.nikolai   As far as I can tell, he no longer is a Dev with BTS but with PLAY/NOTE

marketing.methodx   Marketing group. MethodX gave up the reigns to others and they are putting out a newsletter.

argentina-marketing.matt608    Marketing delegate who has left and supposedly handed the reigns over to a different group that include elmato, another 100% delegate.

delegate-dev2.btsnow           Redundant delegate

dev-trial.misc.nikolai   This one is funny and I think is an inside joke with Toast. The guy this was intended for is gone, the fees paid off and was supposed be taken offline. But here it is still there banking money.

dacx.baozou   Crowd funded and VC funded, why do they need a delegate. (One of the elusive Chinese whales perhaps?)

provisional.bitscape   Redundant delegate

I think we should start spring cleaning, above are a selected group of delegates that we can use as a starting point. Some of these may be worth keeping, but lets hear the justification of why that should be. Without legitimate justification for their continuance, let us move to promote removal of these delegates.

What research have YOU done on this (or are you waiting for others to do it for you?)

http://bitsharesblog.com

I would be interested in seeing  your analysis of the value of the "selected group of delegates" above being placed on http://bitsharesblog.com

I keep up to date with delegates and take my vote away from those I consider to not be adding potential to BitShares.

That involves a lot of work on my part. I was on Marketing conference calls with some of the delegates for many hours this past Easter weekend.

What we need to do is encourage dialogue to evaluate the delegates. I picked out a handful from Newmine's list and would love to hear your opinions on them as well as everyone else's. This is something we should be doing, it is more constructive than simply bemoaning the price.

What I do not like so much is delegates leaving and 'handing' off their position to someone else. Do we not have a way for a 100% delegate to reduce his or her pay? If you are hired, and you decide to move on, it would be nice if you reduced your pay to 3% and continue signing blocks, inform everyone and ask to be voted out.

[jaran]

We don't see PLAY or MUSIC having their own version of bitUSD.  In fact, you see them using the BitShares version.

I haven't been following Play lately, but who says they, especially Music, aren't/won't be using their own version of BitUSD? The Music blockchain isn't ready yet, so how can you make that claim? Unless there is some huge news I somehow missed, I am sure Music will have its own version of BitUSD.

Ya I wonder where that info is coming from as well.  It sounds like MUSIC is being designed to not rely on bitshares or bitcoin based on the last minor update.  Maybe we will find out this friday when they tell us a little more about what NOTES actually are.

[onceuponatime]

dev0.nikolai   As far as I can tell, he no longer is a Dev with BTS but with PLAY/NOTE

marketing.methodx   Marketing group. MethodX gave up the reigns to others and they are putting out a newsletter.

argentina-marketing.matt608    Marketing delegate who has left and supposedly handed the reigns over to a different group that include elmato, another 100% delegate.

delegate-dev2.btsnow           Redundant delegate

dev-trial.misc.nikolai   This one is funny and I think is an inside joke with Toast. The guy this was intended for is gone, the fees paid off and was supposed be taken offline. But here it is still there banking money.

dacx.baozou   Crowd funded and VC funded, why do they need a delegate. (One of the elusive Chinese whales perhaps?)

provisional.bitscape   Redundant delegate

I think we should start spring cleaning, above are a selected group of delegates that we can use as a starting point. Some of these may be worth keeping, but lets hear the justification of why that should be. Without legitimate justification for their continuance, let us move to promote removal of these delegates.

What research have YOU done on this (or are you waiting for others to do it for you?)

http://bitsharesblog.com

I would be interested in seeing  your analysis of the value of the "selected group of delegates" above being placed on http://bitsharesblog.com

I keep up to date with delegates and take my vote away from those I consider to not be adding potential to BitShares.

That involves a lot of work on my part. I was on Marketing conference calls with some of the delegates for many hours this past Easter weekend.

[arhag]

We don't see PLAY or MUSIC having their own version of bitUSD.  In fact, you see them using the BitShares version.

I haven't been following Play lately, but who says they, especially Music, aren't/won't be using their own version of BitUSD? The Music blockchain isn't ready yet, so how can you make that claim? Unless there is some huge news I somehow missed, I am sure Music will have its own version of BitUSD.

I see no reason why this would not have been the case with Vote and DNS. In fact, I think it would have left it open for the market to fairly value each separate chain AND the service it planned to provide.  You also would have had people like Toast working on DNS and bringing in a team of people very passionate about one thing: Decentralized DNS.  That DAC would have funded the building of Decentralized DNS DACs that easily plug into future BitShares browsers, wallets, apps...etc.  Each would have drawn in different demographics and then as they all grew, they could start implementing feature sets employed in other DACs.  And each chain would have its own marketing delegates with their own focused message. 

Yeah that's great except they all need a stable foundation blockchain to build on and also all either need or greatly benefit from the BitAsset system as well. Bidding on domain names isn't that great when you have to account for the price volatility of your DNS token over the 30 day bid period, for example. Using BitUSD would be better. Music lovers would rather pay 99 cents for a song rather than 1500 NOTE today but then 1800 NOTE tomorrow, for example. Great so they can each have their own BitAssets except now they split liquidity across many chains making each of the BitAssets worse than they would be if they were all on the same chain.

Okay, so let's have them all use the same BitAsset as the one on the BitShares X chain. Well this is a technically tricky but doable with some trade-offs. I have discussed a way this could be done in the past and have since become a stronger and stronger advocate of this approach. But even then, it takes lots of coding and testing before such functionality would be available for use. So then core devs need to work on that. But that work is reusable on all other blockchains, so it would make the most sense for the BitShares X devs to work on that and then when it is done all the other chains can adopt that technology. And their chains aren't really 1.0 ready until that feature is ready. They can work on the other business logic of the chain in parallel though if they can get the funding to do so.

So now you have BitShares X devs working on improving the foundations of the blockchain and BitAsset system. They are improving the performance, eliminating bugs, improving the market engine, and developing the new features needed to allow other chains to use BTSX's BitAssets. How long would this take and what resources would it require? Well we know at least how long it would take all of our core devs working on all but the last thing. That is because that is exactly what they are working on right now and they are still not done. It all took WAY longer than originally promised. That's what happens in software development. Also, it basically took all of the money I3 had raised (in fact, with all the price drops, how much longer do the core devs have before their year-end bonuses aren't enough to even pay them an unsustainably low wage for their services?) and some small additional money from delegate dilution pay.

Would there be enough money available to allow them to finish that task much less any extra to devote to OTHER devs working on VOTE and DNS functionality in parallel? Where would that money come from? Crowdfunding similar DPOS blockchain related projects would likely just be taking away buy pressure from BTSX, which would reduce the delegate dilution pay for the core devs working on the foundation of the blockchain. We are a small group and not growing fast enough. But to grow fast enough we need a compelling product to sell to others who haven't bought into the vision yet. That means going after the really high value services and providing those services in a very high quality way. A decentralized exchange on a very robust platform with a fast lightweight client that looks beautiful and is easy to use is what is required. This is part of the foundation that other DACs depend on. It makes no sense to waste limited resources (money and dev talent) on things that are not going to grow the token's value fast enough. We need the token value to grow because that is the source of revenue to pay for more devs who will then be able to work on many interesting different blockchain services and features in parallel.

So the way I see it, the economics of the situation would have forced DNS and VOTE to languish anyway until enough of the BitShares X foundation was built. What is worse is that they would have avoided paying for the cost of the foundation that they use since the dilution would have been for BTSX only and not of the other DACs' tokens. I think the BitShares ecosystem would have not looked very differently in terms of functionality available or user adoption at this point in time, and I would even say we would have most likely been worse off than we currently are.

At this point, I think we just need to finish getting the core blockchain technology and the client software polished to get user adoption to increase and hopefully have the price of BTS increase, and then use those extra resources paid for through delegate dilution of the higher BTS price to build the functionality necessary to allow third-parties to concurrently build DApps and/or child DACs on the BitShares platform with minimal effort while using BTS's BitAssets and even leveraging the consensus/networking systems of the BTS blockchain (basically "Turing complete scripts" but done by allowing the validators or "child DAC delegates" to run arbitrary sandboxed executable code that implements the business logic of their DAC/DApp and uses the BTS blockchain and optionally their own nested blockchains, which are committed to the BTS parent blockchain, as the persistent data store for their DAC/DApp). Once this foundation is set, my hope is that we can have developer resources explode and see many third-parties concurrently working on new features like prediction markets, bond markets, voting, DNS, etc.

[xh3]

disorganized

[Pheonike]

Its alright to have a decentralize source of raising funds through delegates, but in in order have accountability on spending there needs to be some kind of centralize body for oversight. If you have a thousand ppl with a thousands ideas of success then  there's nothing but confusion.