Author Topic: Should we hold a community hangout today? (poll)  (Read 4175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

Seriously, think big picture and understand that Dan et all are doing their best to lead us forward.

I am not going to participate in any kind of hangout where someone else is going to discuss how to dictate to someone else how they are going to run their company without even the directors of said company being present. This is turning into mob FUD and it should end right here.

I have no doubt Stan / Dan & the dev team all have the best intentions and wish to see BitShares succeed.

You raise one central point here DSN: does BitShares belong to the Cryptonomex / dev team or to anyONE?
Answer:  NO! This is a community effort launched with the help of all of us. We all have contributions to make. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the essential contributions of the dev team, without which there would be no BitShares, but to saying we're trying to take control away and run their company is an exaggerated perspective IMO.

The koolaid is sweet, but put the glass down for a minute and reflect on the decisions made unilaterally by the dev team in the past that turned out badly for all. Clearly they could use some help in non-technical matters. This is where any doubts I may have about BitShares' success arise. You may see things differently if you haven't be around here very long.

I think it is unwise to avoid the tough questions and take a wait and see attitude, thereby avoiding responsibility. Everybody should be held accountable for their promises and their actions, including the dev team. Nobody should get a free pass to scrutiny. If a position has integrity it will only be strengthened by scrutiny and examination.

Bytemaster has said that developers will hold the reigns of political power (all delegate seats initially) when 2.0 is launched. I'm in TOTAL agreement with that. They are writing the code, they control it through delegates, INITIALLY. BM said this was only until replacement delegates are voted into place. As yet I have seen nobody announce their candidacy or intentions to become a delegate, so their control is not being contested or is the issue, IMO.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16902.msg216352.html#msg216352

And I been here since August last year.. nearly a year. I know whatswhat of the BitShares growing pains.

Someone else said it.. if people don't believe in this anymore, they can sell off their shares and let the rest of us go forward. There is no stopping anybody from doing so.

I'm not sure what is being said here...

Just because someone whose antics we all tend disagree with brought this up and highlighted some potential problems doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider it.  Just like I don't mind people considering that I might be some guy who wants to destroy bitshares into a thousand shards. 

Then I'd prefer the community look at the facts, discuss them without putting others down and try to find a way to move forward...rationally. 

I received pms from worried people.  So I acted.  I am honest in my personal opinions as I think I should be.  So it is my hope that I am not being considered a source of a problem here...but if people want to talk about it, so be it.

Regardless, most people don't want to talk about it in a Mumble session so it looks like I have some more time to get some of my other checklist items for the day finished ;)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 05:43:18 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Seriously, think big picture and understand that Dan et all are doing their best to lead us forward.

I am not going to participate in any kind of hangout where someone else is going to discuss how to dictate to someone else how they are going to run their company without even the directors of said company being present. This is turning into mob FUD and it should end right here.

I have no doubt Stan / Dan & the dev team all have the best intentions and wish to see BitShares succeed.

You raise one central point here DSN: does BitShares belong to the Cryptonomex / dev team or to anyONE?
Answer:  NO! This is a community effort launched with the help of all of us. We all have contributions to make. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the essential contributions of the dev team, without which there would be no BitShares, but to saying we're trying to take control away and run their company is an exaggerated perspective IMO.

The koolaid is sweet, but put the glass down for a minute and reflect on the decisions made unilaterally by the dev team in the past that turned out badly for all. Clearly they could use some help in non-technical matters. This is where any doubts I may have about BitShares' success arise. You may see things differently if you haven't be around here very long.

I think it is unwise to avoid the tough questions and take a wait and see attitude, thereby avoiding responsibility. Everybody should be held accountable for their promises and their actions, including the dev team. Nobody should get a free pass to scrutiny. If a position has integrity it will only be strengthened by scrutiny and examination.

Bytemaster has said that developers will hold the reigns of political power (all delegate seats initially) when 2.0 is launched. I'm in TOTAL agreement with that. They are writing the code, they control it through delegates, INITIALLY. BM said this was only until replacement delegates are voted into place. As yet I have seen nobody announce their candidacy or intentions to become a delegate, so their control is not being contested or is the issue, IMO.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16902.msg216352.html#msg216352

And I been here since August last year.. nearly a year. I know whatswhat of the BitShares growing pains.

Someone else said it.. if people don't believe in this anymore, they can sell off their shares and let the rest of us go forward. There is no stopping anybody from doing so.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline onceuponatime

What needs scrutiny is Newmine's motivations. A scrutiny of his posting history here and on bitcointalk clearly shows that his motivation is NOT the furthering of BitShares as an ecosystem. What his motivation really IS is harder to determine, but maybe he just enjoys trying to tear down what others are building up. There are people like that.

I have been supporting this project since long before there was any code at all (check my registration date on this forum), and I have nothing but the highest respect for the intentions of the Larimers. What they are trying to achieve is totally congruent with my vision of a better and more honest world.

Mistakes have been made, but it is intentions that counts because mistakes can be corrected as we experiment and evolve.

Newmine will never build a better world because that is not his intention. But he may very well tear down the one that we are trying to build if we let him.

Offline Thom

Seriously, think big picture and understand that Dan et all are doing their best to lead us forward.

I am not going to participate in any kind of hangout where someone else is going to discuss how to dictate to someone else how they are going to run their company without even the directors of said company being present. This is turning into mob FUD and it should end right here.

I have no doubt Stan / Dan & the dev team all have the best intentions and wish to see BitShares succeed.

You raise one central point here DSN: does BitShares belong to the Cryptonomex / dev team or to anyONE?
Answer:  NO! This is a community effort launched with the help of all of us. We all have contributions to make. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the essential contributions of the dev team, without which there would be no BitShares, but to saying we're trying to take control away and run their company is an exaggerated perspective IMO.

The koolaid is sweet, but put the glass down for a minute and reflect on the decisions made unilaterally by the dev team in the past that turned out badly for all. Clearly they could use some help in non-technical matters. This is where any doubts I may have about BitShares' success arise. You may see things differently if you haven't be around here very long.

I think it is unwise to avoid the tough questions and take a wait and see attitude, thereby avoiding responsibility. Everybody should be held accountable for their promises and their actions, including the dev team. Nobody should get a free pass to scrutiny. If a position has integrity it will only be strengthened by scrutiny and examination.

Bytemaster has said that developers will hold the reigns of political power (all delegate seats initially) when 2.0 is launched. I'm in TOTAL agreement with that. They are writing the code, they control it through delegates, INITIALLY. BM said this was only until replacement delegates are voted into place. As yet I have seen nobody announce their candidacy or intentions to become a delegate, so their control is not being contested or is the issue, IMO.

 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 04:30:03 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
No way. If somebody isn't yet convinced that the dev team is all in for Bitshares, then maybe he should just sell all his BTS and move to some another project.

Times like these we need to let devs to their job and stop asking way too far-fetched "what if" questions. They have the 2.0 in the making, remember?

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog
I don't know if the team has to address newmine specifically, since he has a tendency to sound a bit too aggressive (entertaining as it is), but the community's brewing concerns should definitely be addressed as it looks like the investor's interests and the interests of the development team may be diverging.

As things stand, Cryptonomex' hypothetical corporate gig could be actually worth more - and be far more liquid - than their entire BTS stake. Hell, it could be bigger than the entire BTS market cap.

As I understand it, the original investors were promised a stake in I3's future projects and Graphine is certainly the result of a two-year trial&error experimentation between  developers, investors, traders and the market realities. Now, that is not to say that the shareholders "own" Daniel Larimer and everything he does for the rest of his life. But it starts to look like Cryptonomex is becoming a competitor to Bitshares as it's corporate shares may be a better deal than BTS. That perception of project's self-cannibalization cannot be in Daniel's own interest either.

All those concerns about the future of Bitshares support and BTS value can be alleviated with a sharedrop - a decisive realigning of incentives between developers and investors.

Later on in the process of building bitshares,  BM clarified that these promises were not legally binding and that our ags donations and pts stake were not investnents...but more like crowdfunding donations. 

This is why I've stated two things:
1) the community's unwillingness to provide devs with living wages  might end up costing us significantly and
2) We should, as a community, try to come up with ways to remediate the situation

And the SEC sees that these 'donations' are now 'shares' in a company... OUUU GOODY.. we got another one of these crypto-tard bitcoin thingies we can nail to the wall for SEC violation in selling unregistered securities. Good-bye BitShares.

Seriously, think big picture and understand that Dan et all are doing their best to lead us forward.

I am not going to participate in any kind of hangout where someone else is going to discuss how to dictate to someone else how they are going to run their company without even the directors of said company being present. This is turning into mob FUD and it should end right here.

Have a hangout about features in BitShares 2.0 and ways it can work better, I will gladly participate. Not how we are entitled to tell someone else how to run their business.


The force is strong within you young padawan.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I don't know if the team has to address newmine specifically, since he has a tendency to sound a bit too aggressive (entertaining as it is), but the community's brewing concerns should definitely be addressed as it looks like the investor's interests and the interests of the development team may be diverging.

As things stand, Cryptonomex' hypothetical corporate gig could be actually worth more - and be far more liquid - than their entire BTS stake. Hell, it could be bigger than the entire BTS market cap.

As I understand it, the original investors were promised a stake in I3's future projects and Graphine is certainly the result of a two-year trial&error experimentation between  developers, investors, traders and the market realities. Now, that is not to say that the shareholders "own" Daniel Larimer and everything he does for the rest of his life. But it starts to look like Cryptonomex is becoming a competitor to Bitshares as it's corporate shares may be a better deal than BTS. That perception of project's self-cannibalization cannot be in Daniel's own interest either.

All those concerns about the future of Bitshares support and BTS value can be alleviated with a sharedrop - a decisive realigning of incentives between developers and investors.

Later on in the process of building bitshares,  BM clarified that these promises were not legally binding and that our ags donations and pts stake were not investnents...but more like crowdfunding donations. 

This is why I've stated two things:
1) the community's unwillingness to provide devs with living wages  might end up costing us significantly and
2) We should, as a community, try to come up with ways to remediate the situation

And the SEC sees that these 'donations' are now 'shares' in a company... OUUU GOODY.. we got another one of these crypto-tard bitcoin thingies we can nail to the wall for SEC violation in selling unregistered securities. Good-bye BitShares.

Seriously, think big picture and understand that Dan et all are doing their best to lead us forward.

I am not going to participate in any kind of hangout where someone else is going to discuss how to dictate to someone else how they are going to run their company without even the directors of said company being present. This is turning into mob FUD and it should end right here.

Have a hangout about features in BitShares 2.0 and ways it can work better, I will gladly participate. Not how we are entitled to tell someone else how to run their business.



+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fuzzy

I don't know if the team has to address newmine specifically, since he has a tendency to sound a bit too aggressive (entertaining as it is), but the community's brewing concerns should definitely be addressed as it looks like the investor's interests and the interests of the development team may be diverging.

As things stand, Cryptonomex' hypothetical corporate gig could be actually worth more - and be far more liquid - than their entire BTS stake. Hell, it could be bigger than the entire BTS market cap.

As I understand it, the original investors were promised a stake in I3's future projects and Graphine is certainly the result of a two-year trial&error experimentation between  developers, investors, traders and the market realities. Now, that is not to say that the shareholders "own" Daniel Larimer and everything he does for the rest of his life. But it starts to look like Cryptonomex is becoming a competitor to Bitshares as it's corporate shares may be a better deal than BTS. That perception of project's self-cannibalization cannot be in Daniel's own interest either.

All those concerns about the future of Bitshares support and BTS value can be alleviated with a sharedrop - a decisive realigning of incentives between developers and investors.

Later on in the process of building bitshares,  BM clarified that these promises were not legally binding and that our ags donations and pts stake were not investnents...but more like crowdfunding donations. 

This is why I've stated two things:
1) the community's unwillingness to provide devs with living wages  might end up costing us significantly and
2) We should, as a community, try to come up with ways to remediate the situation
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 02:57:17 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline fuzzy

Quote from: Thom
Fuzzy, if it were me I think I would have left newmine out of this thread entirely. Perhaps there is something to talk about regarding Cryptonomex's business plan and the BitShares roadmap, but I wouldn't have given any credit to newmine. He is all FUD. What he may provide in terms of stimulating anti-koolaid thinking he more than crushes with his inflammatory choice of words and volatile, negativity.

People that observe my posts can see they aren't always optimistic, but I'm always trying to get at the objective truth.

Impossible to leave newmine out of it.  Yes he generally brings topics up in a way that are needlessly negative and dramatic, but to think his points have no merit is a bit of a stretch imho...

For instance, what happens if the team works on a project for another company that BM starts out thinking will not compete with bitshares, but innovations that come from said project and demands from those who pay the teams salary (in a legally binding contract mind you) end up proving BM'S initial impression wrong?  Now BM  and team would be faced with a decision to fight a legal battle that is costly and likely unwinnable or to back out of a legally non-binding contract with the community of investors here.  Trust me, if I was only in this for myself I'd have taken one of any number of other opportunities I've had in the past to increase my own wages and simply invested in many crypto projects, but this one to me has always been worth it to sacrifice on that front...so I'm not trying to give a known FUDer more legtimacy, but what he said (though as always was in terrible form) does have a potential to occur. To say it isn't possible loses objectivity imho because of a distaste for Newmine's methods (for which I share distaste).
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 02:59:02 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
I don't know if the team has to address newmine specifically, since he has a tendency to sound a bit too aggressive (entertaining as it is), but the community's brewing concerns should definitely be addressed as it looks like the investor's interests and the interests of the development team may be diverging.

As things stand, Cryptonomex' hypothetical corporate gig could be actually worth more - and be far more liquid - than their entire BTS stake. Hell, it could be bigger than the entire BTS market cap.

As I understand it, the original investors were promised a stake in I3's future projects and Graphine is certainly the result of a two-year trial&error experimentation between  developers, investors, traders and the market realities. Now, that is not to say that the shareholders "own" Daniel Larimer and everything he does for the rest of his life. But it starts to look like Cryptonomex is becoming a competitor to Bitshares as it's corporate shares may be a better deal than BTS. That perception of project's self-cannibalization cannot be in Daniel's own interest either.

All those concerns about the future of Bitshares support and BTS value can be alleviated with a sharedrop - a decisive realigning of incentives between developers and investors.

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog

No because I'm not getting distracted from the good work the devs have done this week to winge about the cost of keeping them here to innovate for us.

Couldn't have said it better.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile

No because I'm not getting distracted from the good work the devs have done this week to winge about the cost of keeping them here to innovate for us.

Offline Thom

we give this guy far too much attention.
+5%

I am much more concerned about the process by which decisions are made by of the dev team than their intentions to see BitShares succeed. Their track record on the former is not so great whereas the later is outstanding. I think they need all the help they can get in making better marketing and communications decisions, but they have not followed through in that department, time & time again. Whatever happened to the PR review board for example? Or  the huge incentives provided up front to certain parties while others who have demonstrated longstanding loyalty and value are passed over?

You can't deny the reality that the consulting revenue Cryptonomics produces could (especially in the short term while BTS marketcap is so low) be an incentive for them to shift development priorities away from BitShares.

The mainstream financial powers are fighting an economic war against crypto-currencies and it could be some time before BTS marketcap picks up. As we have seen no sharp rise in marketcap based on the 2.0 announcement, it may not come until the2.0 release has been tested and ready.

I only hope the pool of Cryptonomex investors have provided enough funding to see the dev team through these lean times without consulting distractions so 2.0 can remain the prime focus and see the light of day ASAP.

Fuzzy, if it were me I think I would have left newmine out of this thread entirely. Perhaps there is something to talk about regarding Cryptonomex's business plan and the BitShares roadmap, but I wouldn't have given any credit to newmine. He is all FUD. What he may provide in terms of stimulating anti-koolaid thinking he more than crushes with his inflammatory choice of words and volatile, negativity.

People that observe my posts can see they aren't always optimistic, but I'm always trying to get at the objective truth.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
we give this guy far too much attention.

Do we really have learnt something from currently BTS situation and the merger last Nov.?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 02:10:26 pm by wallace »
give me money, I will do...