The DAO price discussion thread.

[chryspano]

[btstip]

Hey abit, here are the results of your tips...

• tonyk: has been credited 1 THUMBSUP

Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebit.cubeconnex.com and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22451.msg292462/topicseen.html#msg292462

Created by hybridd

[bitsharesbrazil]

pssst .. you forgot your caps lock ..

sorry xeroc, I little bit excited

[xeroc]

pssst .. you forgot your caps lock ..

[bitsharesbrazil]

I don't remember anyone losing money in bts1 from any coding bug..and by the way we are in bts2 now..You can't compare completely different things..and it appears that someone has hacked DAO and is dumping millions on the market..I don't remember ever to have happened to bts something like that..

In any case, if we don't advertise the DEX in situation like this then how do you ever expect bts to rise? Come on people..Show some positivity for once...

No need to wait anything more from bts for your financial freedom. bts is ready. We only need to attract more people to learn about bts now.

WILLIAM WALLACE SOMETIME IN THE PAST SHOUT

BTSSSSSSSSS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[bitsharesbrazil]

HOLY SHIT MAN 50% crash!

MY DREAM IF BTS COULD DO THE SAME I WOULD BE A GOOOOD HOLDER

[karnal]

In fact .. who ever "hacked" the DAO is NOT dumping because the funds he gained are in (that's what I heard) in a mini DAO that doesn't release the funds until in a few days or so ..

It appears ethereum is going to hardfork over this ..

Sounds like TheDAO is too big to fail.

Where have we seen this before?

Confidence in ethereum will be lost if the hardfork is accepted imo.
People invested in TheDAO, it's an experimental concept, and likely 99.999% of investors did not read the contract source code.

Personally, it seems ludicrous to me that the whole ethereum network should hardfork to compensate these lazy investors.
It was an experiment, and it likely failed.

[btswildpig]

I don't remember anyone losing money in bts1 from any coding bug..and by the way we are in bts2 now..You can't compare completely different things..and it appears that someone has hacked DAO and is dumping millions on the market..I don't remember ever to have happened to bts something like that..

In any case, if we don't advertise the DEX in situation like this then how do you ever expect bts to rise? Come on people..Show some positivity for once...

No need to wait anything more from bts for your financial freedom. bts is ready. We only need to attract more people to learn about bts now.

I mean computer program is always safe until it's not .
In BTS1.0 , there were significant BTS at that time was created from thin air due to that bug , by a "white hat", Angle account had to burned the same amount just to fix the total supply .

And in BTS2.0 , there are no this kind of bug yet (until someone find another ) .

Especially for a small community , bugs are hard to find and notice .

By the way again , BTS1.0 had a significant bug that cost people millions of BTS when they were transferring BTS while their fee went up to the roof like millions of BTS per transaction.  People lost money , and I heard that the dev pay them back with their development fund .

I don't recommend you to pretend that this system is all safe while others could fail . This could fail as well . It's the nature of computer program .


Just because you brought something and want it to be successful , that doesn't mean you should remove people's risk awareness .

[xeroc]

In fact .. who ever "hacked" the DAO is NOT dumping because the funds he gained are in (that's what I heard) in a mini DAO that doesn't release the funds until in a few days or so ..

[mf-tzo]

I don't remember anyone losing money in bts1 from any coding bug..and by the way we are in bts2 now..You can't compare completely different things..and it appears that someone has hacked DAO and is dumping millions on the market..I don't remember ever to have happened to bts something like that..

In any case, if we don't advertise the DEX in situation like this then how do you ever expect bts to rise? Come on people..Show some positivity for once...

No need to wait anything more from bts for your financial freedom. bts is ready. We only need to attract more people to learn about bts now.

[btswildpig]

Everyone should go on Polo troll box and explain to people why such attacks cannot happen to bts, advertise the DEX and the importance of a decentralized exchange.

it can happened to BTS and it has happened in BTS1.0  .

Coding bug happens .

[mf-tzo]

Everyone should go on Polo troll box and explain to people why such attacks cannot happen to bts, advertise the DEX and the importance of a decentralized exchange.

[xeroc]

Someone is attacking DAO: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDao/comments/4ohwgu/one_of_the_whales_has_split_from_the_dao/

The DAO ETH Balance was 11,599,353.25 Ether 24 hours ago with a total Token Supply of 1,159,931,811.69 TheDAO, now there is currently only 8,914,536.17 Ether with a total Token Supply: 1,159,813,810.27 TheDAO.

So 118001.42 tokens has split with 2684817.08 Eth? 22.75 Eth per DAO token? Can someone explain?

Someone is draining the DAO using recursive splitDAO calls

It is according to slack. Someone is stealing like $1.000.000 worth of ether a minute

[gamey]

But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

What is the point of this whole project except to leverage the crypto-currency DAC model to create tokens to resell.  The whole thing is distasteful. I don't care, but then I read/hear the dev talking about how BitShares users should go over there!!  Why!?  To tarnish Bitshares even more?  To move BitShares as a project so it has its main forum as a sub-forum of some platform with no real reason to think will particularly succeed. The devs are/were to greedy. The math behind the whole thing is too sketchy to even bother to figure out.

Look at the volume vs capsize. Blah blah. It has little to do with being unfair or entitlement or anything else. Is it entitlement to expect Bytemaster to do what he said he'd do etc ?

BTW @chryspano this thread was going fine and I was defending BitShares the project against btswildpig to some degree. There are no weird motives going but yes this thread has become something else. I'm not going to plead to keep it on subject. Would we be better making a big 'whats wrong with steemit' thread?

Honestly the worst part is how the upvote/downvote are stake weighted. Don't even get me started...  that is a hard problem, but this solution is not an improvement for users. Stake weighted downvoting given all we know seems horrible but I'll leave it to the reader..

[chryspano]

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

Not sure if this particular version of events is true but I think this is the gist of the allegation regarding how they made the mining deliberately difficult...

Here's how they did it:

First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released

(1) no compiled wallets
(2) no instructions to build
(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mine

This wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.

Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427230.0

(OP alleges they were exposed as mining to many different witnesses but being one entity in the initial launch and if true it's likely they followed a similiar modus operandi in the relaunch & is also why they were able to secure 80% of the initial Steem.)

I will just leave smooth's reply here, It's in the same thread you quoted and it surprises me that you missed this.

Saying they were trying to "cover the fact" that they were mining a lot seems wrong since they said they were doing it (see below), and although they had lots of different miner names, the names were mostly of the form steamit99. It wasn't hidden at all.

Post #3 on the thread:

Accounts:
root, admin, administrator, steem, any, moderator, and unknown plus anything starting with steemit are our own mining efforts.

Those were all highly visible, as the code displayed the name of every miner when they solved a block (this has apparently since been turned off). It was easy to see they were mining most of the blocks.

You have to take Eclipse Dev's comments in the right context. I think he was both FUDding to discourage participation and just plain trolling.

And one comment on this one...

"The reasoning behind not having windows binaries is that the devs continue to use their insider knowledge to fuck over the community.

So far we were used the other way, "the community"(aka miners) to f@ck the developers, how dare they to reverse the roles?
But here is the solution!!!! Windows binaries are not enought! every future coin from now on must have an extensive windows guide from the moment you power on your PC, downloading and installing applications in windows can be quite difficult for some "community members", its also unfair to exclude those people from mining! isn't it?

[Empirical1.2]

But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

I didn't have an issue with the 'intentional violation every one of the Bitcoin communities cultural regulations'

The point I'm making is that the ANN didn't communicate or link to that and so in my opinion attempted to deliberately mislead investors for the reasons stated above (non-disclosure of deliberately making it difficult in ANN, implying a wide fair distribution by marketing as No Premine/No Instamine, implying a wide fair distribution by listing multiple unique miners present at launch (despite securing 80% of initial supply) and potential deletion of posts relating to mining/initial distribution.)

So my opinion it is those actions of omitting and misrepresenting of what they were doing in the ANN that might be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation & possibly intent to defraud.

If your opinion is different or you agree but you believe miss-selling/defrauding investors is acceptable that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and views and I will still try to be polite and professional despite that not being reciprocated.

[onceuponatime]

But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

[Empirical1.2]

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

Not sure if this particular version of events is true but I think this is the gist of the allegation regarding how they made the mining deliberately difficult...

Here's how they did it:

First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released

(1) no compiled wallets
(2) no instructions to build
(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mine

This wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.

Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427230.0

(OP alleges they were exposed as mining to many different witnesses but being one entity in the initial launch and if true it's likely they followed a similiar modus operandi in the relaunch & is also why they were able to secure 80% of the initial Steem.)

[chryspano]

Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others...

I agree, people living in 3rd world countries without a pc and internet connection could not mine! I call this unfair!

My brother who thinks that "Ubuntu" is a wild tribe somewhere in Africa could not mine this coin, I call this unfair!

The most unspeakable action of them all was that ASIC miners could not mine!(probably 4-5 people in China but who cares) I call this unfair!

The developers/creators of the project believed IN THEIR PROJECT and used/rented huge computing power to mine coins OF THEIR project, this is outrageous and also unfair!

Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies'....

'No premine|No instamine' Is there something you don't understand?

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method.

So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.

My own tin foil hat theory is this, if posts were deleted from the ANN thread, there would be numerous threads about it in this forum and Bitcointalk.  I see no such threads but tin foil hat theories.

Their only "sin" was that they believed in their project more than anyone else, more than those "mine and insta-dump for profit" miners out there. So LETS CRUCIFY THEM for this!



Is this by any chance the The DAO price discussion thread? or it's just another oportunity to.......................................................

[Empirical1.2]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.

What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..

Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others and mining the vast majority to themselves was known prior to that announcement. So not disclosing that in the ANN is misleading to potential investors.

Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies' a wide, fair, distributed launch that the founders/others don't have an unfairly mined stake in which is not the case so that is misleading to potential investors.

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method.

So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.

Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defraud

[svk]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.

What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..

[xeroc]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

What could possibly be the reason for this:

You guys still think STEEM is a CURRENCY?

[btswildpig]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

wow

[Empirical1.2]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

[mf-tzo]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Feel free to give me some upvotes  since this is discussed in Steem..
https://steemit.com/trading/@mf-tzo/open

[Tuck Fheman]

I haven't seen many downvotes on STEEM.

You're just not trying hard enough. 

http://steemd.com/@cryptorune

[donkeypong]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Only if you're one of the whales and no other whale down-vote it.

I haven't seen many downvotes on STEEM. They don't really factor in unless there's misleading or misplaced content. As for whales, that's true, but there are enough users on there with decent-sized stakes now that a few upvotes means money. Heck, even my modest stake moves the needle a bit now. But then again, it means you need to make useful posts that add something to the conversation. So for some folks on here who don't have anything of value to say, you probably wouldn't make much on STEEM either.

[chryspano]

A lot of hypothetical downvoting discussion in this forum... any FACTS so far?

[abit]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Only if you're one of the whales and no other whale down-vote it.

[donkeypong]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

[abit]

This post is not meant to be negative (I do appreciate the efforts of the DEX getaways and bitshares would be useless without them, so thank you very much for the efforts) but I can’t help to notice that there is a big spread and inconsistency between “real” DAO token and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO price.

I assume that this is due to low liquidity and low demand for the DEX assets vs. the real thing.
If you want to attract users I think that Open Ledger and transwiser should provide this liquidity by hedging their positions. At the time of this post the spread between “real” DAO and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO is 25%. This is huge…If one wants to exit DAO via selling OPEN.DAO or TRANS.DAO has to pay this spread, not many users will buy again the Open.xxx ICO or any other ICO tokens by any getaway in the DEX. I would think that since OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO are liquid assets of an unliquid currently token they should be sold at premium not at discount…
What do you think?

At least they can exit.. If you hold real DAO you can't exit right now.
If you want to invest DAO at this time, the cheapest way is to buy TRANS.DAO.
Premium or discount, depends on the market, the people got involved.

[mf-tzo]

This post is not meant to be negative (I do appreciate the efforts of the DEX getaways and bitshares would be useless without them, so thank you very much for the efforts) but I can’t help to notice that there is a big spread and inconsistency between “real” DAO token and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO price.

I assume that this is due to low liquidity and low demand for the DEX assets vs. the real thing.
If you want to attract users I think that Open Ledger and transwiser should provide this liquidity by hedging their positions. At the time of this post the spread between “real” DAO and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO is 25%. This is huge…If one wants to exit DAO via selling OPEN.DAO or TRANS.DAO has to pay this spread, not many users will buy again the Open.xxx ICO or any other ICO tokens by any getaway in the DEX. I would think that since OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO are liquid assets of an unliquid currently token they should be sold at premium not at discount…
What do you think?

[abit]

You aren't invested in new money?  Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type.  It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain.  He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts.  Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them !  Epic.

You guys ( lil_jay890, gamey, btswild ) are well overboard with this... this is all part of a trend that I have come to appreciate very much. The trend is called

painfully-honest-project(/self)-naming.

That is to say that  at that very epic moment that you gamey described..it was sealed for solar-and-non-sense... he just named the project after the truth...
 "Solar found new money laying around" and it made so much sen$e... so the  "Solar New Money"


But he is not alone... other brutally-honest-naming examples include:

- OBITs for bitshares....(self explanatory)

-eSTEEM - bm has so much self-esteem, so much so it justified something as ridiculous as issuing 75% of the coins to himself and even adding 9x more coins for each coin someone dared to 'earn'...  full name: "BM's self eSTEEM."

-of course steem was developed in STEALTH of bts holders... I mean while MasterByte supposedly was working on STEALTH....
btw, during the same period, in STEALTH were also sold tens of millions of BTS by the core team...while the poor common bts holders believed something improving bts was being developed...

-and bm has the honesty to call himself reverseflash (you know how one flashes the toilet? The reverse flash is the opposite action) while working in STEALTH to satisfy and fairly pay himself in accordance with his self-eSTEEM.... the bts holders were reversed-flashed more or less.

-Open Ledger is so named of course to make it perfectly clear that their ledger is wide open...open as in open for a new ICO token  of theirs each and every month...

LOL. Tony you're so funny.

#sharebits "tonyk" 1 THUMBSUP

[mint chocolate chip]

You aren't invested in new money?  Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type.  It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain.  He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts.  Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them !  Epic.

You guys ( lil_jay890, gamey, btswild ) are well overboard with this... this is all part of a trend that I have come to appreciate very much. The trend is called

painfully-honest-project(/self)-naming.

That is to say that  at that very epic moment that you gamey described..it was sealed for solar-and-non-sense... he just named the project after the truth...
 "Solar found new money laying around" and it made so much sen$e... so the  "Solar New Money"


But he is not alone... other brutally-honest-naming examples include:

- OBITs for bitshares....(self explanatory)

-eSTEEM - bm has so much self-esteem, so much so it justified something as ridiculous as issuing 75% of the coins to himself and even adding 9x more coins for each coin someone dared to 'earn'...  full name: "BM's self eSTEEM."

-of course steem was developed in STEALTH of bts holders... I mean while MasterByte supposedly was working on STEALTH....
btw, during the same period, in STEALTH were also sold tens of millions of BTS by the core team...while the poor common bts holders believed something improving bts was being developed...

-and bm has the honesty to call himself reverseflash (you know how one flashes the toilet? The reverse flash is the opposite action) while working in STEALTH to satisfy and fairly pay himself in accordance with his self-eSTEEM.... the bts holders were reversed-flashed more or less.

-Open Ledger is so named of course to make it perfectly clear that their ledger is wide open...open as in open for a new ICO token  of theirs each and every month...

Conveniently not having a stakeholder VOTE on whether DaNS friend should be given 30 million bitshares and whether we should approve the merger.

[lil_jay890]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

The larimers have shown how easy it is to keep selling different crypto investments.  They have assumed they have zero binding to their early investors, who they describe as donators.  You're only good to them if your buying into their latest projects.  I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

bitshares is the only project that has broken free of centralized control of preminers/founders.  Unfortunately it is the perfect tool for scammers to separate a fool and his money.

And please no one give me the "can't fault them for trying to put food on the table" argument.  Fact is they are taking your food off of your plate.  How long people will keep starving themselves to fund pie in the sky pipe dreams remains to be seen.

[giant middle finger]

why are you still here?!

[tonyk]

You aren't invested in new money?  Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type.  It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain.  He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts.  Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them !  Epic.

You guys ( lil_jay890, gamey, btswild ) are well overboard with this... this is all part of a trend that I have come to appreciate very much. The trend is called

painfully-honest-project(/self)-naming.

That is to say that  at that very epic moment that you gamey described..it was sealed for solar-and-non-sense... he just named the project after the truth...
 "Solar found new money laying around" and it made so much sen$e... so the  "Solar New Money"


But he is not alone... other brutally-honest-naming examples include:

- OBITs for bitshares....(self explanatory)

-eSTEEM - bm has so much self-esteem, so much so it justified something as ridiculous as issuing 75% of the coins to himself and even adding 9x more coins for each coin someone dared to 'earn'...  full name: "BM's self eSTEEM."

-of course steem was developed in STEALTH of bts holders... I mean while MasterByte supposedly was working on STEALTH....
btw, during the same period, in STEALTH were also sold tens of millions of BTS by the core team...while the poor common bts holders believed something improving bts was being developed...

-and bm has the honesty to call himself reverseflash (you know how one flashes the toilet? The reverse flash is the opposite action) while working in STEALTH to satisfy and fairly pay himself in accordance with his self-eSTEEM.... the bts holders were reversed-flashed more or less.

-Open Ledger is so named of course to make it perfectly clear that their ledger is wide open...open as in open for a new ICO token  of theirs each and every month...

[lil_jay890]

https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa

Bytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.

(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)

I saw a great article on PTS/AGS before written by a Bitcoiner .
I wish I had believed it . 

however , if you think about it , everybody can write something on why something can not come true , especially in the crypto world .
you're bound to become a good predictor if you bash enough projects .

Yea it is kinda funny...  BitShares was likely hurt by Dan's bashing of Ethereum, so he continues on with The DOA.  "Dead on Arrival!" .. clever.. but not really.  He'll get all the people new to ETH or those not paying attention also against Steemit.

I do think some bashing is needed to properly analyze the validity of some non-sense BitShares based tokens like xxxx-non-sense-new-money ......

You aren't invested in new money?  Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type.  It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain.  He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts.  Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them !  Epic.

And don't forget his product is a new currency that he so humbly named after himself... and he says you shouldn't invest in it if you think the Us dollar will still be around in a few years.  This has winner written all over it!

Where do I sign up??

[gamey]

https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa

Bytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.

(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)

I saw a great article on PTS/AGS before written by a Bitcoiner .
I wish I had believed it . 

however , if you think about it , everybody can write something on why something can not come true , especially in the crypto world .
you're bound to become a good predictor if you bash enough projects .

Yea it is kinda funny...  BitShares was likely hurt by Dan's bashing of Ethereum, so he continues on with The DOA.  "Dead on Arrival!" .. clever.. but not really.  He'll get all the people new to ETH or those not paying attention also against Steemit.

I do think some bashing is needed to properly analyze the validity of some non-sense BitShares based tokens like xxxx-non-sense-new-money ......

You aren't invested in new money?  Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type.  It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain.  He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts.  Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them !  Epic.

[btswildpig]

I do think some bashing is needed to properly analyze the validity of some non-sense BitShares based tokens like xxxx-non-sense-new-money ......

[btswildpig]

https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa

Bytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.

(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)

I saw a great article on PTS/AGS before written by a Bitcoiner .
I wish I had believed it . 

however , if you think about it , everybody can write something on why something can not come true , especially in the crypto world .
you're bound to become a good predictor if you bash enough projects .

[gamey]

https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa

Bytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.

(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)

[gamey]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

Your mistake is correlating negative issues with people being 'programmers'.  From what I can tell Chinese education system doesn't produce many programmers so I am not sure what to think but it explains the problems.

IMO your problem is you chose the wrong people. It has nothing to do with them being programmers. Bill Gates was a hardcore programmer... As were a ton of founders.

One needs to always judge their mistakes appropriately.

And I'm not sure how I should response to your question about China ....because nowadays the saying is , "Even if you throw a stone in the street randomly  , you'll hit a programmer " .

Just , most programmer with great skills don't speak English well (nor that they have much time to do so ) . So it's not common for you to encounter many Chinese programmers on line .

I wish the word "China" could be used to expain everything ..... but it doesn't really , aside from sometime glith in the networking environment .

This is interesting.  Sorry I was annoyed last night and was overly rude.  I got home and was reading this stuff all drunky and see people making comparisons to Bytemaster/Bitshares and blaming rpogrammers.

 That does explain a lot of things though, that most programmers in China don't know English.  That explains a lot.  From my perspective, I see China as this big anti-dillution movement that has killed a lot of progress in BTS.  Then I never see programmers step up and want to do the work at whatever price makes Chinese happy. I know alt and abit, but no one making proposals etc.  Honestly, I think this self-funding system has too many problems to fit in with a normal development process. Oh well, I still root for BTS, I wasted too much of my life on it to not.

Back on topic about The DAO. I need to make a decision. I've decided that investing in projects early is probably a better approach than trying trading.  Trading only works for me if there is a information asymmetry which I can use.

[Shentist]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

i think your understanding of the DAO is not clear.
at the moment the DAO is in creation phase and after the creation is done, anyone can make a proposal and get funded. this will be probably done first
from slock.it, because they are the creators of the smartcontracts the DAO is using.

if you want your ETH back you can everytime split and your ETH is returned to you, so it much less risk then with AGS, JL777, ETH or any other crypto project so far.

Hmm......So that means DAO's token price will certainly higher than or equals the marketcap of the Ether it holds ? 
And as long as we assume Ether can not go lower ...... investing in DAO will have no chance of losing money but winning as long as not much money are spent in the fund ?

Sounds like too good .......If that's the case , it explains why people who were not selling their Ether in the first place is now investing crazy in DAO ......because they can purely bet on the token price of DAO before significant money spent from the fund without any risk ?

It just sounds too good .

as far as i know you can only split form the DAO if a vote is done and you do not vote. if you vote yes or no you will hold your DAO and got the rewards from the proposal. personally i think this will be a upgraded and better version of our worker proposals.

in short you are still in control of your ETH as long as they are not spend. in my eyes this is really the first DAO ever published. now over 13.000 accounts pooled 94 million USD and the creationphase is running for 14 days.

[btswildpig]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

i think your understanding of the DAO is not clear.
at the moment the DAO is in creation phase and after the creation is done, anyone can make a proposal and get funded. this will be probably done first
from slock.it, because they are the creators of the smartcontracts the DAO is using.

if you want your ETH back you can everytime split and your ETH is returned to you, so it much less risk then with AGS, JL777, ETH or any other crypto project so far.

Hmm......So that means DAO's token price will certainly higher than or equals the marketcap of the Ether it holds ? 
And as long as we assume Ether can not go lower ...... investing in DAO will have no chance of losing money but winning as long as not much money are spent in the fund ?

Sounds like too good .......If that's the case , it explains why people who were not selling their Ether in the first place is now investing crazy in DAO ......because they can purely bet on the token price of DAO before significant money spent from the fund without any risk ?

It just sounds too good .

[Shentist]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

i think your understanding of the DAO is not clear.
at the moment the DAO is in creation phase and after the creation is done, anyone can make a proposal and get funded. this will be probably done first
from slock.it, because they are the creators of the smartcontracts the DAO is using.

if you want your ETH back you can everytime split and your ETH is returned to you, so it much less risk then with AGS, JL777, ETH or any other crypto project so far.

[btswildpig]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

Your mistake is correlating negative issues with people being 'programmers'.  From what I can tell Chinese education system doesn't produce many programmers so I am not sure what to think but it explains the problems.

IMO your problem is you chose the wrong people. It has nothing to do with them being programmers. Bill Gates was a hardcore programmer... As were a ton of founders.

One needs to always judge their mistakes appropriately.

And I'm not sure how I should response to your question about China ....because nowadays the saying is , "Even if you throw a stone in the street randomly  , you'll hit a programmer " .

Just , most programmer with great skills don't speak English well (nor that they have much time to do so ) . So it's not common for you to encounter many Chinese programmers on line .

I wish the word "China" could be used to expain everything ..... but it doesn't really , aside from sometime glith in the networking environment .

[btswildpig]

BTW. ....According to Coindesk article , it seems like programmers in this DAO(we thought it was slock.it) denied they're the operator and initiator of the DAO .....

Tricky ...... They said the code was built by them , but they didn't actually started this DAO , and the funding was not raised by them

[btswildpig]

I really am not looking to be a dick. However people need to correlate their mistakes appropriately. If the lesson you learned from BitShares is "don't trust programmers" then you need to seriously reconsider the basis of what you learned.

That... or become a programmer...

I'm a PHP and C (not plus plus )programmer myself ....
What I meant was "i'm not gonna trust programmers to take a chuck load of money to invest on something else that was not built by them and out of their control to hope to get return on investment " .
I could just invest the things that they intended to invest in myself , if all they do is take one's money and give it to another .

of course , some VC and Investment funds are built by programmers , but they also have people from other area of expertise to help them , like from the financial, business world .
But crypto investment fund that was not runned in the form of a traditional investment process ? don't think they could have those .

[gamey]

I really am not looking to be a dick. However people need to correlate their mistakes appropriately. If the lesson you learned from BitShares is "don't trust programmers" then you need to seriously reconsider the basis of what you learned.

That... or become a programmer...

[gamey]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

Your mistake is correlating negative issues with people being 'programmers'.  From what I can tell Chinese education system doesn't produce many programmers so I am not sure what to think but it explains the problems.

IMO your problem is you chose the wrong people. It has nothing to do with them being programmers. Bill Gates was a hardcore programmer... As were a ton of founders.

One needs to always judge their mistakes appropriately.

[CalabiYau]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

Many lessons learned indeed.

[btswildpig]

i think i'll pass .
I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool .   

AGS/PTS/JL777 .......

[Empirical1.2]

Fairly similar concept to how BTS works in some way it seems.

Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.

Voting is overrated.  I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day.

'The DAO' seems to be doing very well in its fund-raising so far, so it seems the market has faith in something similar to the BTS voting model. I guess the real test will be to see how they do in practice.

http://coinjournal.net/dao-decentralized-fund-management-crowdsale/

The DAO Raises Over US$13 Million During First Three Days of Crowdsale

Similarly, in The DAO, there is no director and no board. Voting power is granted to holders of The DOA tokens who can vote to approve or decline proposals submitted. Voting rights are proportional to the amount of tokens held. The proposals submitted to The DAO by contractors, define how much or how little control over its operational responsibilities The DAO “outsources” to the contractors.

The DAO said it is looking for projects that provide a return on investment or benefit to the organization and its members, and which benefit the decentralized ecosystem as a whole.

The organization earns revenue generated by the products and services it helps fund. Profits are then distributed to participants based on transparent rules that are decided by the participants beforehand.

[Akado]

If they decide to throw money at everything, which seems to be what most people want, they are screwed. I believe whales won't follow that, though. Thankfully it's stake that matters.

[gamey]

Thoughts on this project ?

I'm not sure what to make of it. Anyone think it is a bad investment?