Author Topic: Are any BitAsset models more competitive or worth more than BitShares?  (Read 3307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
Option 1:  Raise funds for 40-50% of a new competing DAC that gives 50% equity to existing BTS holders.

BitSapphire ...


BitSapphire's goal is building a darn good wallet. He is unlikely to deviate from his objective.

Option 2:  BitShares PTS


PTS is supported by a small group of volunteers.  There is no funding and it is unlikely to compete.

Option 3: Make Big Changes to BTS (Only if share price drops below $8-10 million)

Cancel the merger.
Fire all non developers and raise developers salaries.
Raise fees and try to survive on revenue with a fee sharing model to incentivise marketers and third parties instead of shareholders trying to manage 101 salaried  delegates.

Since the merger decision, BTS has put its entire stake into making it good.  A U-turn like this is high risk.  It may alienate or scare off the remaining big whales.

Other:

Most would prefer a 'safe path' ie  leave it as it is.
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline yellowecho

696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Guys.  You don't see those features yet because we have made the conscious decision to get the exchange rock solid first.  What you got was the team's ability to focus, rather than being obligated to work on the other things because of obligations to post 2/28 donors.  Those features are still on our roadmap with much more to come.  We just have to prioritize and focus our available resources.

Hope that is true(?) despite the market-cap back on these levels ...   :-\

Offline fuzzy

Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC.  Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets.  I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required.  Your proposal shows clear impatience.  Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes,  just advising people to get off is very popular round here.


All is swell. 
If not, sell.

Now that actually turned out to be fantastic investment advice.

Thanks for the feedback though.

Option 1: Unfortunately development costs money, we've largely run out of it.  A team with $1 million+ in development funds and low overheads developing a BitAsset competitor could potentially be much more competitive than BTS accessing 15k a month via dilution that has a merger draining value too. I think that's the most likely competitor. I don't think there's any price pumping there, it's just maths, business and common sense.

Option 2: Is a lot about brand image, correct. Believe it or not, it's critical for a successful business.  There's also the fact that a DAC accessing 15k via dilution per month and with up to a 100k per month drain on the share price is not much more competitive than a no dilution DAC & less popular. A new brand may have a higher chance of long term success as well as the potential for lucrative short term gains. I believe a no dilution DAC, valued at $80 million like BTSX was with fees in the $0.02-0.05 can certainly be self sustaining, competitive and not some sort of price pump.

Option 3: Is about discussing a range of big changes to BTS. The time to do that is not when BTS falls to $10 million and everyone is panicking but before. If the merger doesn't add value and is overly expensive and we're below $10 million, yes I'd consider cancelling it. If dilution for non developers is not adding value, getting the share supply below 2.5 Billion and only employing developers (& paying them more) may be worth a try. If there are options like revenue sharing that could lighten the burden on shareholders and introduce genuine free market competition into BTS as opposed to who is the best at getting votes, then yes consider that too . All of these could potentially improve BTS at a foundational level and would not be price pumping imo.

The new BTS may well be successful just as it is. Well done to all the people who believe  in the fundamentals and are working diligently to make it a long term success and make positive contributions even in the face of up to 80% losses. Apologies for investors like me that tend to be overly critical in a long and sustained price decline.

I'm actually kind of glad that shareholders are a bit ruthless. What other crypto's give such power to the shareholders to have a voice? Bitshares is necessarily a more complex animal because of the early stage of growth, the volatility and the politics that comes from it.
I think it important.
But then again I prefer certain solutions to be proposed instead of simple complaints. Of course we are all human so we all complain from time to time.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 03:19:07 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline yellowecho

Sell your fear to me.  I'm shorting bitUSD  8)
The fundamentals of BTS have never been stronger yet the price is back to the level it was during the IPO.  Think of where BTS is now compared to its initial release.. buying BTS at these levels is an absolute no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.  Weak hands are gonna regret their fears.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 03:21:19 pm by yellowecho »
696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I sort of proposed something similar. I think so far the merger is a failure. I think dilution on the other hand may not have done us any harm.

What did we get from the merger though? I don't see the voting features, I don't see the DNS features, I don't see that we got anything at all.

Guys.  You don't see those features yet because we have made the conscious decision to get the exchange rock solid first.  What you got was the team's ability to focus, rather than being obligated to work on the other things because of obligations to post 2/28 donors.  Those features are still on our roadmap with much more to come.  We just have to prioritize and focus our available resources.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC.  Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets.  I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required.  Your proposal shows clear impatience.  Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes,  just advising people to get off is very popular round here.


All is swell. 
If not, sell.

Now that actually turned out to be fantastic investment advice.

Thanks for the feedback though.

Option 1: Unfortunately development costs money, we've largely run out of it.  A team with $1 million+ in development funds and low overheads developing a BitAsset competitor could potentially be much more competitive than BTS accessing 15k a month via dilution that has a merger draining value too. I think that's the most likely competitor. I don't think there's any price pumping there, it's just maths, business and common sense.

Option 2: Is a lot about brand image, correct. Believe it or not, it's critical for a successful business.  There's also the fact that a DAC accessing 15k via dilution per month and with up to a 100k per month drain on the share price is not much more competitive than a no dilution DAC & less popular. A new brand may have a higher chance of long term success as well as the potential for lucrative short term gains. I believe a no dilution DAC, valued at $80 million like BTSX was with fees in the $0.02-0.05 can certainly be self sustaining, competitive and not some sort of price pump.

Option 3: Is about discussing a range of big changes to BTS. The time to do that is not when BTS falls to $10 million and everyone is panicking but before. If the merger doesn't add value and is overly expensive and we're below $10 million, yes I'd consider cancelling it. If dilution for non developers is not adding value, getting the share supply below 2.5 Billion and only employing developers (& paying them more) may be worth a try. If there are options like revenue sharing that could lighten the burden on shareholders and introduce genuine free market competition into BTS as opposed to who is the best at getting votes, then yes consider that too . All of these could potentially improve BTS at a foundational level and would not be price pumping imo.

The new BTS may well be successful just as it is. Well done to all the people who believe  in the fundamentals and are working diligently to make it a long term success and make positive contributions even in the face of up to 80% losses. Apologies for investors like me that tend to be overly critical in a long and sustained price decline.

Thought leaders in this space are beginning to talk about how native b/ch token value is only correlated with community.  (B/chs with bitassets shake that up a bit, but not completely). 

If it's true that value comes community, then a fork with more money will need to buy their own community, which will be extremely expensive.  It's possible to do, but community builds from other things than money, such as 3rd party businesses.  Because of the cost of community, bitshares will be very difficult to compete against via forking and VC funding, esp considering further difficulty in setting up BitAsset markets, copying existing UIA markets and cloning 3rd party businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 01:50:33 pm by Carpet Ride »
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC.  Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets.  I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required.  Your proposal shows clear impatience.  Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes,  just advising people to get off is very popular round here.


All is swell. 
If not, sell.

Now that actually turned out to be fantastic investment advice.

Thanks for the feedback though.

Option 1: Unfortunately development costs money, we've largely run out of it.  A team with $1 million+ in development funds and low overheads developing a BitAsset competitor could potentially be much more competitive than BTS accessing 15k a month via dilution that has a merger draining value too. I think that's the most likely competitor. I don't think there's any price pumping there, it's just maths, business and common sense.

Option 2: Is a lot about brand image, correct. Believe it or not, it's critical for a successful business.  There's also the fact that a DAC accessing 15k via dilution per month and with up to a 100k per month drain on the share price is not much more competitive than a no dilution DAC & less popular. A new brand may have a higher chance of long term success as well as the potential for lucrative short term gains. I believe a no dilution DAC, valued at $80 million like BTSX was with fees in the $0.02-0.05 can certainly be self sustaining, competitive and not some sort of price pump.

Option 3: Is about discussing a range of big changes to BTS. The time to do that is not when BTS falls to $10 million and everyone is panicking but before. If the merger doesn't add value and is overly expensive and we're below $10 million, yes I'd consider cancelling it. If dilution for non developers is not adding value, getting the share supply below 2.5 Billion and only employing developers (& paying them more) may be worth a try. If there are options like revenue sharing that could lighten the burden on shareholders and introduce genuine free market competition into BTS as opposed to who is the best at getting votes, then yes consider that too . All of these could potentially improve BTS at a foundational level and would not be price pumping imo.

The new BTS may well be successful just as it is. Well done to all the people who believe  in the fundamentals and are working diligently to make it a long term success and make positive contributions even in the face of up to 80% losses. Apologies for investors like me that tend to be overly critical in a long and sustained price decline.   


« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 12:42:51 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC.  Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets.  I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required.  Your proposal shows clear impatience.  Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 11:29:32 am by Carpet Ride »
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
Enough with the price anxiety.  If the Devs have salary covered for the next three years, then IMO we're golden.

Industrial grade clients and blockchain + on/off ramps + referral marketing + 2 to 3 years = revolutionary success


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav

Well some of our community has really been getting the minebitshares thing figured out so while most people were writing complaint threads a couple of the non developer delegates were working on that and getting the right people on board. 
Just because value is hard to measure doesn't mean there isn't any there.


This. Minebitshares is probably our best bet in terms of marketing at the moment. The time to measure value will come, but I think it's still too early to see a trend.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I don't see any value in vote either BUT do we really need to discuss this in each and every thread and make even more threads on top of it? It's important to talk about it, but it's time to move on. Imagine what could be done if some people would use their time for positive things instead :)

You can't build anything substantial on shaky foundations.

It may be that BTS is the best model out there and it just needed to find a hook, like mining real gold. (Which I admit is a fantastic hook)

At the same time if BTS falls further people might start making knee-jerk reactions, so discussing the foundational issues is key.
Perhaps as ruthless shareholders we even need to consider no longer honouring the merger if BTS falls further. It certainly hasn't added much value.

There is A LOT of money to be made with BitAssets, but only if you're on the right ship. 

If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline fuzzy

I don't see any value in vote either BUT do we really need to discuss this in each and every thread and make even more threads on top of it? It's important to talk about it, but it's time to move on. Imagine what could be done if some people would use their time for positive things instead :)

Well some of our community has really been getting the minebitshares thing figured out so while most people were writing complaint threads a couple of the non developer delegates were working on that and getting the right people on board. 
Just because value is hard to measure doesn't mean there isn't any there.

I agree with lucky.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
I don't see any value in vote either BUT do we really need to discuss this in each and every thread and make even more threads on top of it? It's important to talk about it, but it's time to move on. Imagine what could be done if some people would use their time for positive things instead :)

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I sort of proposed something similar. I think so far the merger is a failure. I think dilution on the other hand may not have done us any harm.

What did we get from the merger though? I don't see the voting features, I don't see the DNS features, I don't see that we got anything at all.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads