This is why I said the focus should be on social entrepreneurs and others who actually might want to use the technology but don't know what it is...
That is why I said use airdrops to promote strategic alliances.
6000 people we will not be able to do very much compared to millions of social entrepreneurs. Get those millions of social entrepreneurs to hear about Bitshares...
Offer crypto equity via an airdrop to registered entrepreneurs...
An industry requires entrepreneurs. Auroracoin didn't court entrepreneurs...
Entrepreneurship is the process of identifying and starting a business venture, sourcing and organizing the required resources and taking both the risks and rewards associated with the venture
To me strategic partnerships are where people contribute capital/work/ideas to gain equity.
If you build a good product & you promote it well, the customers will come rapidly.
You still don't get it. Do you want to build a product or bootstrap an industry?
What Bitcoin has done was possible only because you had tens of thousands of early adopters mining. Those early miners who essentially got equity for nearly free then had to work really hard to increase the value of their equity otherwise they would be mining at a loss.
Proof of Work helped a lot when people could mine with CPUs and GPUs. ASICs ruined the distribution model of Proof of Work but now there are many entrepreneurs who have started businesses and even pay their employees in Bitcoin.
To create an ecosystem you need community, collaboration and strategic alliances. Microsoft had a strategic alliance with Intel the chip maker. Everyone who purchased a computer got a free copy of Microsoft Windows 95. Personal computers were given away to schools for free by Apple. This is what created the initial alliances between the personal computer, the Internet, academia, and more.
While these people did not necessarily have shares in Microsoft for example it's highly likely that Microsoft did give some of its shares in exchange for certain alliances. It's not like we know why people chose Microsoft products over other products.
In the real world I can't think of many success stories where a company promoted their product by giving away free equity in the valuable underlying company. Personally I think the evidence is starting to show that the world works the same in the crypto-economy.
We are dealing with the digital world where your product can be forked. It's all about winning stakeholders and building community. If you build a big enough community of entrepreneurs that is your network effect. That is the only reason Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin do well. You have to actually win the social entrepreneurs above all else because they are the only kind of entrepreneur likely to understand what we are doing. Traditionally entrepreneurs don't understand why a DAC is needed because they aren't activists and aren't trying to do anything which is truly disruptive most of the time because if they did they might not get as much VC funding from Wall Street.
With 98%+ average shareholder losses from their highs, experienced by coins that have sought to give away 50% of their equity for free - I for one am fairly certain that that a clone which gave away 100% equity away for free is not the threat some scaremongers are attempting to make out.
I never said give away 50% like that. That would be a very stupid way to do it and I've always said just blindly airdropping (carpet bombing) is not as effective as using targeted airdropping (heat seeking missiles).
Mastercoin gained a lot of it's value because the giveaways were very generous. I was giving away 0.1-0.5 MSC typically. Some people would probably think just to cash it out and get $20 or whatever it was worth at the time but due to the marketing the majority of people held onto it at least until stuff like Counterparty came along.
The purpose of using equity to form strategic alliances is to build a community of social entrepreneurs. These are the people who will actually make or use the DACs in the long run and these are the people who will bring the best ideas on what to do with the capital should the time come that any of us do get rich.
A few examples of social entrepreneurship so you can see the difference
Social entrepreneurship is the process of pursuing innovative solutions to social problems. More specifically, social entrepreneurs adopt a mission to create and sustain social value. They pursue opportunities to serve this mission, while continuously adapting and learning. They draw upon appropriate thinking in both the business and nonprofit worlds and operate in all kinds of organizations: large and small; new and old; religious and secular; nonprofit, for-profit, and hybrid.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
Business entrepreneurs typically measure performance in profit and return, but social entrepreneurs also take into account a positive return to society. Social entrepreneurship typically furthers broad social, cultural, and environmental goals and is commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. Profit can at times also be a consideration for certain companies or other enterprises.
Social entrepreneurship practiced in a world or international context is called international social entrepreneurship.
In my opinion there should be a social entrepreneurship summit in the model of what the Gates Foundation is doing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2012/09/18/calling-all-social-entrepreneurs/
Invite social entrepreneurs to the summit. Give them free equity in person, form strategic alliances and connections at the summit. Do the same for conferences and seminars which are more specialized.
Why do I say focus on the social entrepreneuership sector? We have millions of trained highly educated social workers around the globe. Social work does not pay very much money, is not very efficient, is not technologically very sophisticated, and there is a lot of room for improvement in this sector. Most of the social work is government funded and non profit.
Social entrepreneurs bring private sector "magic" into the public sector. This is provide competition to the public sector in a way which either forces the public sector to adopt better technology or the private sector will solve the problem on it's own.
But I don't think you can ignore social problems while you get rich and think you'll have community support. To get and maintain community support you have to actually support the community. If you can do it in a sustainable and profitable way where the initial stakeholders can gain wealth while they support their community or pursue their causes then you'll have billions of dollars flow into this space.
If you can do philantropy better than the Gates Foundation by creating a DAC for instance which helps philantrophists then why not? You'd help more people with greater efficiency and less cost. If your technology really is that good and it's proven on the international stage then at worst you'll get good press and at best then you'll have international stakeholders. How else are you supposed to reach overseas into the global community if you're only thinking about Wall Street and Silicon Valley?
If you're thinking global then you have to think about social entrepreneurship.