[Wild Ass Guessing]
[/Wild Ass Guessing]
bytemaster suggested in the mumble, it was private individuals, so not exactly VCs in the usual sense of companies.
Perhaps I've had too much beer but I wonder that while newmine is always provocative, he asks an important question. Given what's occurred over at CounterParty, it seems there maybe currently more often closed opportunities than ones which necessarily lend themselves to open answers like BitShares ambition has always been. While those closed interests might take advantage of existing blockchains, there is a risk they will push for distinct options.. it would be nice, if the devs could make obvious their commitment to the existing BitShares blockchain to allay such fears once and for all. Those who are simply opportunist, are not always committed enough to fight to the end.. and realistically, existing fintech may opt for middle step private chains, before adopting more open consensus.. I think that much is unclear atm, which is why BitShares needs a clear focus and communication of capability.
Maintaining consensus, is always about having a clear direction, sense of purpose and commitment., which is why I push for roadmaps and milestones beyond just getting 2.0 launched. Robust solutions, should be able to answer tough questions.
Regardless of whether the answer is somewhere in the fine print of the new website, if the defence to such questions, is more dull anti-FUD "You're so good at coming up with new FUD. Its like your special skill.", then that's not good enough and there needs to do better answers available in the FAQs.
Perhaps whoever are PR/Marketing can provide simple answers to these questions by referencing what is known already. The change to 2.0 is a lot to take in.. it looks good on the face of it.. having devs make obvious to everyone there intention is to continue support for BTS, would be great. There's no good reason not to encourage any fintech interest to use the existing network.. more the merrier. :drunk: :p