Power of the community: Price recovery action 1

[Akado]

My only problem with the "non-merger" option is actually the resources we have. We don't have a dev team that big. Imagine that spread over 3 DACs.. progress would be so much slower, we probably wouldn't have nothing to show by now. If you think the BitShares client is taking too long, imagine having the team working on that divided in 3 or more. We don't have the luxury to waste resources and time on other DACs at the moment.

I'm not saying the merger didn't have an impact. It certainly did, obviously and honestly I'm still divided between the 2 options, but think about it for a moment, where would you be now with a dev team divided and working on different projects? You wouldn't have the same focus, things would be much slower and like I said, at the moment we just can't have that luxury if we want to stay on the game. We don't have the time, the resources or the money to do that.

[fuzzy]

I'm still silly in love with the entire project though.  Being a founding member in a budding organization...is definitely not easy.  And mistakes will be made.
Looking at improving is the only way to go forward.  Anything else is a stubborn waste of time. 

[nomoreheroes7]

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.

 . Enough with the teasing, we need concrete details/clear vision. Constantly being told to "think bigger" and that "things are happening" simply doesn't instill confidence, since we've seen for months now that these things may very well not be true.

I know I never would have bought so many BTS around October-November last year if I would've known so many promises were just hot air. Really irksome and truly feels like I've been lied to. Still hodling BTS because I've got nothing better to hold at this point (and all my BTS are stuck in a 0.8.0 glitch, still waiting on that fix in 0.9.0 for over a month now. Ugh). Just sucks.

[svk]

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.

[fuzzy]

Perhaps others can learn from these mistakes.

I don't think DNS's bitassets were ever going to compete with BitShares.  You can have someone telling you that, but look at the liquidity of those markets in the past 1/2 a year.  I don't even think DNS would have used bitassets. There was too much important stuff being done that BTS is not even touching.  There are not that many businesses a DAC can actually do that are nailed so wonderfully like DNS and related services.

See everyone talked about how a merging made sense in a general business sense... "network effect" they all say .. but they appeared to forget why the D and A in DAC are useful.

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

The merger was a mistake in my mind and always has been, but you can already see the consensus on it and it hasn't killed BitShares at all.  So lets look at what we see already:
Marketcap is down lower.
Toast is working on a BitShares-related project that will strengthen the entire ecosystem overall anyway.  I would personally like him to resurrect DNS through a sharedrop on the old DNS tokens.
Adam is still working separately on Vote. I would like to see him sharedrop shares from follow my vote on the shareholders that helped fund him with a good few BTS (even at current prices)...and then we would be back to square one, only with things like mining real Gold and Silver with the BitShares Flagship DAC.
The merger confused all of us and even the marketing delegates as to what our identity was.  It was a move I believe made out of fear, but literally none of the BitShares based DACs have died.  They all exist, just waiting to be dusted off like an old, mean race car that sat in the shed a couple years too long. 

Lets face it...they would all work together because a pack is more powerful than flying solo in an ocean with big sharks.  If those two things happened, and all parties worked together to make it work for at least a designated period of time, I think each chain would become ridiculously valuable and in return would bring more people to fight for the cause building tools that would be useful for all BitShares-based DACs.

I'd honestly prefer Toast's and Adam's opinion on it though.  I mean, would they have tried to make their own USD?  And if they would have, would it have been like 10 years down the road or did they plan on competing in the same space?

[gamey]

Perhaps others can learn from these mistakes.

I don't think DNS's bitassets were ever going to compete with BitShares.  You can have someone telling you that, but look at the liquidity of those markets in the past 1/2 a year.  I don't even think DNS would have used bitassets. There was too much important stuff being done that BTS is not even touching.  There are not that many businesses a DAC can actually do that are nailed so wonderfully like DNS and related services.

See everyone talked about how a merging made sense in a general business sense... "network effect" they all say .. but they appeared to forget why the D and A in DAC are useful.

[Stan]

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.   

[cass]

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.

LOF = Lack Of Focussing

[cass]

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.

this 
Completely 2nd that!!!!!!

[svk]

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.

[btswildpig]

The few Delegates that were 'outright frauds' or whatever were found out very quickly and received minimal free BTS in the grand scheme of things.

The Delegate system might have problems, but they're not that severe.  Reversing them at this point would likely have a negative effect.

Newmine likes to sit around and complain about anyone who does work for money but has likely done nothing himself. His views border on absurd if you were to actually take them that seriously.

This is an interesting discussion, Shareholders need to have it in order to keep on top of things.

Newmine made some valid points in the past , during the merger . Had I have contact with Newmine at that time , I would know more about the merger than watching the forum .

The issue is ,  he likes to make his point through a big entrance kind of style , and even move those styles to BTT .
In the end , it becomes the game where people ignores him even if he made some valid point and considered him the enemy .

If he is just blowing off the steam and never want anything to change , then I won't blame his style .
But if he is actually trying to influence the community  , then he should do it in a way that people would take his advice instead of ignoring it .

By the way . I think the first thing Newmine should do , is to hire some guy who is capable of doing worthless things and could paint it in a beautiful way , then apply for a 100% delegate . He can pay 10% to the worthless guy , let him do some worthless work to satisfy the community , and pocket the 90% .

And if he can get this delegate voted in an actually run for several months , then he can finally come out and say :  Hey , this system is crap , I earned 90% by doing nothing .

By then , I think the community would agree the system is bad .
Why not go for a run ? (I noticed many delegates has none prior relationships with the developers or the whales , I really believe Newmine may pull this off if the system is in fact flawed  . Of course , he needs to register a new name to avoid perception)

Mission Undercover is on ..

[btswildpig]

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

No , you want to keep Newmine in here .
Otherwise , he'll move his complaints to every part of the world . 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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

[gamey]

The few Delegates that were 'outright frauds' or whatever were found out very quickly and received minimal free BTS in the grand scheme of things.

The Delegate system might have problems, but they're not that severe.  Reversing them at this point would likely have a negative effect.

Newmine likes to sit around and complain about anyone who does work for money but has likely done nothing himself. His views border on absurd if you were to actually take them that seriously.

This is an interesting discussion, Shareholders need to have it in order to keep on top of things.

[jsidhu]

In addition to the *manual* vote out mechanism, why not introduce an *automatic* expiration period to each 100% delegates?

Like a company offering contract (with a duration) to each employee, I don't see why we cannot introduce a similar contract period to each 100% delegate.  After the contract, if the 100% delegate is under-performed, he/she will be simply downgraded to low-pay delegate. Near the end of each contract period, shareholders can decide whether the 100% delegate deserves a contract extension or not. This should be more effective than *manual* vote out. Different 100% delegate can have different contract period depend on their task nature.

Well, just my little suggestion.

I like the idea.