Author Topic: Press Releases  (Read 7238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Good discussion.

In summary, I think there is a risk of someone copying features from Bitshares. However, as we can see with Bitcoin's success (as luckybit mentioned) the first mover advantage and the network effect that comes with it is quite powerful.

I agree that first mover advantage is huge, otherwise I wouldn't have bought any BTSX. But it is important to not screw it up.

I think this can all work out fine if small BTC holders gradually become convinced of the value of DPOS and BitAssets, and if the real word infrastructure does not lag too much as market cap grows. Small BTC holders who realize the value of BitShares X over Bitcoin can take advantage of the relatively low market cap of BTSX to realize larger future gains. If the process is gradual, the user base support is siphoned away from BTC to BTSX while market recognition of the technical superiority of BitShares increases. After a while, once everyone agrees that that the BitShares toolkit is the better way to go for cryptocurrency, hopefully by then the user base of BTC holders are less significant than BTSX holders. Then, as long as the BTSX stakeholders are willing to keep funding further innovation to stay vigilant against competitors (I think the best way of doing this is to use the DPOS worker model to move the majority of network fees to specific groups/individuals that stakeholders vote to fund), I believe it should be possible to maintain that superior network effect.

If the incentives are set up right the innovators get rewarded as long as they continue pushing the envelop.

Yes, if the incentives are set up right. That is the big question.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
The problem is that the innovation is a public good since it is all open source software (I am making the assumption that one will not be able/willing to use state coercion to enforce copyright law to ban clones that do not follow the social consensus). So if the BTC community were to all come to a consensus that the BitShares toolkit is superior, they could clone and immediately get every benefit we have in addition to the very important added benefit of network effect. Further innovation can also be copied, and besides, the likelihood of further innovation being funded by the smaller chain's stakeholders decreases because of the free rider problem.

I don't see that as the problem. I know innovation is the public good. Innovation is what we as a community have to offer to the world. Innovation is the whole point of disruption unless you're just disrupting to disrupt.

So the whole point is to innovate with the expectation that eventually you'll be copied. If the incentives are set up right the innovators get rewarded as long as they continue pushing the envelop. This means as a community we have to keep pushing the envelop or another community will out innovate us but what makes up a community other than the minds operating within it?

The value comes from everyone (merchants and consumers) adopting a particular token.
You're thinking of Bitshares as just a currency. The value of Bitshares is that you can use it to replace or supplement the functionality of Forex with far lower barriers to entry.  The value of Bitshares is that you can simulate the buying power of any stock or commodity and then trade it in a decentralized manner. BitUSD is just a BitAsset and while it's the first BitAsset to get community attention it's not anywhere near the sort of exotic innovative BitAssets we could see later on once people get comfortable.

BitAssets complicate the network effect a bit. BitUSD can exist on multiple chains and thus be backed by different tokens as collateral. Nevertheless, there is still a tendency for people to keep most BitAssets on a single blockchain for convenience (cross-chain transactions are inconvenient); also, centralizing the BitAssets to one chain increases the market value of that one chain which increases its security (since the cost of a 51% attack goes up).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not entirely sure I agree.
I do see your point that initially security could be at risk in the initial stages where everything is cheap but I'm not entirely certain it would allow a 51% attack which is actually effective.

Couldn't delegates simply use a price feed based on the main chain to avoid that?

If the blockchain that the world converges on is the one whose tokens are distributed to current BTC holders, then they are the ones who capture all that value.

Why distribute it to current BTC holders when we can just distributed it directly to the top traders on Wall Street, bankers, NASDAQ owners, and board of directors of all the blue chip companies? Perhaps we should give all the tokens to the Winkelvoss twins and Ashton Kutcher?

The value will ultimately go to the people who understand the market the best among the users. In the case of communities the incentives should go to those who innovate. I don't see any innovation coming from Bitcoin core devs, and while I do see minimal innovation being funded by whales the whales aren't funding enough innovation in my opinion that they should be rewarded. If Bitcoin whales really cared about innovation they would be buying Bitshares right now and the same can be said about Litecoin whales.


 Now why would the world converge on one particular chain versus another? I am really not sure. I think it is very sensitive to how the initial adoption grows. Once the network effect is fully in place though, it becomes very difficult to displace it (unless another new significant innovation comes out on another chain and the incumbent chain's stakeholders are too slow to realize its potential such that the clone's market cap drops drastically due to shareholders dumping). 

There is no evidence that any technology is difficult to displace. Apple thought the Machintosh was difficult to displace and then came Windows 3.1. Microsoft thought Windows 95 was difficult to displace and then came Linux.  Netscape and Internet Explorer took turns trying to dominate until we ended up with Google Chrome and Firefox.

Silicon Valley rewards innovation unless there are perhaps other hidden backroom deals. Government contracts for example could support a monopoly which doesn't go away. Regulations set by the lawmakers controlled by that monopoly can raise barriers to entry which keep others from being able to innovate.

I would like to see some discussion on what will cause one clone to succeed over another (assuming stake distribution is their only difference). I think if the stake of a chain is more broadly distributed to more consumers willing to spend money, then merchants may elect to go with that chain since it maximizes their potential revenue. And consumers are more willing to buy stake in that chain since those tokens are the ones they are more likely to be able spend on goods/services.  This is a positive feedback loop that would cause that chain to grow compared to the alternatives until it reaches clear dominance. But I think this is very sensitive to many other factors. Hence, I think marketing and initial deals made can make or break the future of a particular chain.

At least this is how I see it. Please correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning. It would most likely be a huge relief.

These are your opinions. To me the industry should be about pushing the envelope of innovation. Bitshares is the most innovative crypto-equity 2.0 platform. NXT is very innovative as well and Ethereum is innovative but lacks the impementation. It makes sense for the health of the ecosystem and industry to reward innovation rather than whales.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 01:30:12 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
They can try to clone things but a clone isn't going to do any good if the innovation comes from the main chain and the clone just copies.

The problem is that the innovation is a public good since it is all open source software (I am making the assumption that one will not be able/willing to use state coercion to enforce copyright law to ban clones that do not follow the social consensus). So if the BTC community were to all come to a consensus that the BitShares toolkit is superior, they could clone and immediately get every benefit we have in addition to the very important added benefit of network effect. Further innovation can also be copied, and besides, the likelihood of further innovation being funded by the smaller chain's stakeholders decreases because of the free rider problem.

I agree that if Bitcoin decided to implement some features of Bitshares that it could really hurt the adoption and thus how successful Bitshares will be. However, I think that is unlikely Bitcoin will do this, as I will explain after the next point. If a smaller chain does copy Bitshares innovation, then I don't think there will be any problems as no one has near the network effect of Bitcoin, not even Litecoin which would arguably be the crypto with the 2nd largest network effect.

I think Bitcoin is unlikely to copy off of Bitshares innovations thus far:

1. DPOS - The Bitcoin community largely hates PoS with a passion. I think most of it is ignorance and they read someone they think is smart analyzing older methods of PoS say its bad, and then the rest don't see the issues with ASICs and the centralization it will bring. Don't count on them copying DPOS anytime soon. I think a lot of them don't realize that PoS has had many iterations in recent history, and judge them based on prior implementations.

2. TITAN - This is a no go for Bitcoin, they are trying to play nice with governments everywhere. I think implementing something like TITAN would hinder that.

3. Bitassets - The Bitcoin community pretty much regards any added features to the client as "gimmicks" or "uneeded bells and whistles". I think they are unlikely to implement anything like that as well. IMO- the joke is on them because some people do want added features and bells and whistles. I mean... obviously, this is why the bitcoin 2.0 movement is gaining so much traction and raising so many funds for development. If you don't like a feature or don't want to use it, then just ignore it and don't use it. They don't understand that some people do want these features and in some cases these features will bring in users that wouldn't have otherwise partook.

4. Am I forgetting something? I haven't honestly looked into future DACs past BitsharesX yet..

In summary, I think there is a risk of someone copying features from Bitshares. However, as we can see with Bitcoin's success (as luckybit mentioned) the first mover advantage and the network effect that comes with it is quite powerful.

The value comes from everyone (merchants and consumers) adopting a particular token. BitAssets complicate the network effect a bit. BitUSD can exist on multiple chains and thus be backed by different tokens as collateral. Nevertheless, there is still a tendency for people to keep most BitAssets on a single blockchain for convenience (cross-chain transactions are inconvenient); also, centralizing the BitAssets to one chain increases the market value of that one chain which increases its security (since the cost of a 51% attack goes up). If the blockchain that the world converges on is the one whose tokens are distributed to current BTC holders, then they are the ones who capture all that value. Now why would the world converge on one particular chain versus another? I am really not sure. I think it is very sensitive to how the initial adoption grows. Once the network effect is fully in place though, it becomes very difficult to displace it (unless another new significant innovation comes out on another chain and the incumbent chain's stakeholders are too slow to realize its potential such that the clone's market cap drops drastically due to shareholders dumping).

I would like to see some discussion on what will cause one clone to succeed over another (assuming stake distribution is their only difference). I think if the stake of a chain is more broadly distributed to more consumers willing to spend money, then merchants may elect to go with that chain since it maximizes their potential revenue. And consumers are more willing to buy stake in that chain since those tokens are the ones they are more likely to be able spend on goods/services.  This is a positive feedback loop that would cause that chain to grow compared to the alternatives until it reaches clear dominance. But I think this is very sensitive to many other factors. Hence, I think marketing and initial deals made can make or break the future of a particular chain.

At least this is how I see it. Please correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning. It would most likely be a huge relief.

IMO- merchants will adopt whatever token consumers are using, so it is more important to attract users of the crypto currency than merchants. Once enough people are using a certain token, a merchant would be stupid not to accept it because they would be losing business. That being said, one of the ways to attract users is having places for them to spend the crypto, so they kind of go hand in hand.

Attracting users can be done several ways.. I like the method of making new and innovative features they want to use along with making improvements to old features, and Bitshares is already doing both.

The rest of your post as to worrying about cloning, I am guessing you are worried about someone making something like Aethereum that is planning on cloning Ethereum and distributing it to Bitcoin holders. I have my doubts this is going to work. I actually posted this in the Aethereum thread the other day and I truly believe what I wrote:

No I've not invested in Ether at all actually. I don't like the current business model but I might invest at a later stage depending.

I have looked at airdrops before and it's pretty unanimous so far that it just crushes the price and doesn't create user adoption. So I thought the Ethereum airdrop planned here was fine, just futile. Considering the proportion of miners involved in Bitcoin and the number of POW fanboys, trying to bootstrap an ethereum clone based on DPOS onto Bitcoin seemed even more implausible. I think it would just be free advertising for the real Ethereum. Just my opinion, you're entitled to yours.

I think this is a solid post and makes sense to me. I have always looked at Aethereum as a potential threat to Ethereum, but you have now convinced me I was wrong all along about it.

You are certainly correct that all "air drop" coins have been a huge failure thus far. There is no incentive to hold onto the coins and as soon as the are "air dropped" mass dumping ensues.

Ethereum will not suffer from that problem, as all Ethereum owners will have invested something of value to get their portion of Ether. This will provide a deterrent from all Ethereum owners dumping on the market for anything less than what they invested in it, which will uphold the value 1000x better than getting Aethereum for free will.

Just look at how hard all the air drop coins have failed, and how the free distribution Nxt clones have failed. It doesn't take much logical reasoning to deduce that that is what will happen to Aethereum too.

Did I miss anything? I hope that was helpful. :)




This is good stuff!

I would add these observations from my previous posts to your comprehensive treatment just for completeness...

Quote
Bitcoin will have an unassailable role for a long time because of name recognition, the network affect and its commanding lead in the number of people who will accept it.  This makes it the natural crypto-currency to use like a checking account.  You put money into Bitcoin just in time — when you are about ready to spend it. 

What’s about to change is what you do with your crypto savings.

You want your savings to be safe from volatility and/or to earn you a rate of return.  Bitcoin doesn’t do that, but that’s the complementary role I see for BitSharesX.

Come to think of it, I only keep a few percent of my money in my checking account.  If a viable crypto savings account were to become available, I wonder where most of Bitcoin’s current market cap is going to flow?

and this:

Quote

The final step (of adopting BTSX for checking as well as savings) will become obvious once 97% of BTC has been moved from checking to savings - folks will ask themselves "why do I want transactions at the checkout counter to take 10 to 30 minutes when my savings account only takes 10 seconds?"

But, to get there let current BTC lovers get used to the two-account checking-savings paradigm they already know.  Once they have a non-disloyal reason to try us... the rest will take care of itself.

When over half of the BTC users also have a BTSX savings account, merchants will face the "Visa vs. Mastercard" choice and eventually support both with the aid of third party abstraction services.  Once its possible to use BitShares everywhere, then it will be no contest to use BTSX for everything.

Meanwhile, no point in selling point-of-sale functions before they are widely available.  So early marketing messages emphasize why people need both. 

A key part of our marketing plan is to teach this simple idea to more crypto outsiders than there are current Bitcoin insiders.  No other crypto asset or BitShares clone will have this going for them.  So no worries.

The rest will be history!  :)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 01:13:27 am by Stan »
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 CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
They can try to clone things but a clone isn't going to do any good if the innovation comes from the main chain and the clone just copies.

The problem is that the innovation is a public good since it is all open source software (I am making the assumption that one will not be able/willing to use state coercion to enforce copyright law to ban clones that do not follow the social consensus). So if the BTC community were to all come to a consensus that the BitShares toolkit is superior, they could clone and immediately get every benefit we have in addition to the very important added benefit of network effect. Further innovation can also be copied, and besides, the likelihood of further innovation being funded by the smaller chain's stakeholders decreases because of the free rider problem.

I agree that if Bitcoin decided to implement some features of Bitshares that it could really hurt the adoption and thus how successful Bitshares will be. However, I think that is unlikely Bitcoin will do this, as I will explain after the next point. If a smaller chain does copy Bitshares innovation, then I don't think there will be any problems as no one has near the network effect of Bitcoin, not even Litecoin which would arguably be the crypto with the 2nd largest network effect.

I think Bitcoin is unlikely to copy off of Bitshares innovations thus far:

1. DPOS - The Bitcoin community largely hates PoS with a passion. I think most of it is ignorance and they read someone they think is smart analyzing older methods of PoS say its bad, and then the rest don't see the issues with ASICs and the centralization it will bring. Don't count on them copying DPOS anytime soon. I think a lot of them don't realize that PoS has had many iterations in recent history, and judge them based on prior implementations.

2. TITAN - This is a no go for Bitcoin, they are trying to play nice with governments everywhere. I think implementing something like TITAN would hinder that.

3. Bitassets - The Bitcoin community pretty much regards any added features to the client as "gimmicks" or "uneeded bells and whistles". I think they are unlikely to implement anything like that as well. IMO- the joke is on them because some people do want added features and bells and whistles. I mean... obviously, this is why the bitcoin 2.0 movement is gaining so much traction and raising so many funds for development. If you don't like a feature or don't want to use it, then just ignore it and don't use it. They don't understand that some people do want these features and in some cases these features will bring in users that wouldn't have otherwise partook.

4. Am I forgetting something? I haven't honestly looked into future DACs past BitsharesX yet..

In summary, I think there is a risk of someone copying features from Bitshares. However, as we can see with Bitcoin's success (as luckybit mentioned) the first mover advantage and the network effect that comes with it is quite powerful.

The value comes from everyone (merchants and consumers) adopting a particular token. BitAssets complicate the network effect a bit. BitUSD can exist on multiple chains and thus be backed by different tokens as collateral. Nevertheless, there is still a tendency for people to keep most BitAssets on a single blockchain for convenience (cross-chain transactions are inconvenient); also, centralizing the BitAssets to one chain increases the market value of that one chain which increases its security (since the cost of a 51% attack goes up). If the blockchain that the world converges on is the one whose tokens are distributed to current BTC holders, then they are the ones who capture all that value. Now why would the world converge on one particular chain versus another? I am really not sure. I think it is very sensitive to how the initial adoption grows. Once the network effect is fully in place though, it becomes very difficult to displace it (unless another new significant innovation comes out on another chain and the incumbent chain's stakeholders are too slow to realize its potential such that the clone's market cap drops drastically due to shareholders dumping).

I would like to see some discussion on what will cause one clone to succeed over another (assuming stake distribution is their only difference). I think if the stake of a chain is more broadly distributed to more consumers willing to spend money, then merchants may elect to go with that chain since it maximizes their potential revenue. And consumers are more willing to buy stake in that chain since those tokens are the ones they are more likely to be able spend on goods/services.  This is a positive feedback loop that would cause that chain to grow compared to the alternatives until it reaches clear dominance. But I think this is very sensitive to many other factors. Hence, I think marketing and initial deals made can make or break the future of a particular chain.

At least this is how I see it. Please correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning. It would most likely be a huge relief.

IMO- merchants will adopt whatever token consumers are using, so it is more important to attract users of the crypto currency than merchants. Once enough people are using a certain token, a merchant would be stupid not to accept it because they would be losing business. That being said, one of the ways to attract users is having places for them to spend the crypto, so they kind of go hand in hand.

Attracting users can be done several ways.. I like the method of making new and innovative features they want to use along with making improvements to old features, and Bitshares is already doing both.

The rest of your post as to worrying about cloning, I am guessing you are worried about someone making something like Aethereum that is planning on cloning Ethereum and distributing it to Bitcoin holders. I have my doubts this is going to work. I actually posted this in the Aethereum thread the other day and I truly believe what I wrote:

No I've not invested in Ether at all actually. I don't like the current business model but I might invest at a later stage depending.

I have looked at airdrops before and it's pretty unanimous so far that it just crushes the price and doesn't create user adoption. So I thought the Ethereum airdrop planned here was fine, just futile. Considering the proportion of miners involved in Bitcoin and the number of POW fanboys, trying to bootstrap an ethereum clone based on DPOS onto Bitcoin seemed even more implausible. I think it would just be free advertising for the real Ethereum. Just my opinion, you're entitled to yours.

I think this is a solid post and makes sense to me. I have always looked at Aethereum as a potential threat to Ethereum, but you have now convinced me I was wrong all along about it.

You are certainly correct that all "air drop" coins have been a huge failure thus far. There is no incentive to hold onto the coins and as soon as the are "air dropped" mass dumping ensues.

Ethereum will not suffer from that problem, as all Ethereum owners will have invested something of value to get their portion of Ether. This will provide a deterrent from all Ethereum owners dumping on the market for anything less than what they invested in it, which will uphold the value 1000x better than getting Aethereum for free will.

Just look at how hard all the air drop coins have failed, and how the free distribution Nxt clones have failed. It doesn't take much logical reasoning to deduce that that is what will happen to Aethereum too.

Did I miss anything? I hope that was helpful. :)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 12:18:53 am by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
They can try to clone things but a clone isn't going to do any good if the innovation comes from the main chain and the clone just copies.

The problem is that the innovation is a public good since it is all open source software (I am making the assumption that one will not be able/willing to use state coercion to enforce copyright law to ban clones that do not follow the social consensus). So if the BTC community were to all come to a consensus that the BitShares toolkit is superior, they could clone and immediately get every benefit we have in addition to the very important added benefit of network effect. Further innovation can also be copied, and besides, the likelihood of further innovation being funded by the smaller chain's stakeholders decreases because of the free rider problem.

The value comes from everyone (merchants and consumers) adopting a particular token. BitAssets complicate the network effect a bit. BitUSD can exist on multiple chains and thus be backed by different tokens as collateral. Nevertheless, there is still a tendency for people to keep most BitAssets on a single blockchain for convenience (cross-chain transactions are inconvenient); also, centralizing the BitAssets to one chain increases the market value of that one chain which increases its security (since the cost of a 51% attack goes up). If the blockchain that the world converges on is the one whose tokens are distributed to current BTC holders, then they are the ones who capture all that value. Now why would the world converge on one particular chain versus another? I am really not sure. I think it is very sensitive to how the initial adoption grows. Once the network effect is fully in place though, it becomes very difficult to displace it (unless another new significant innovation comes out on another chain and the incumbent chain's stakeholders are too slow to realize its potential such that the clone's market cap drops drastically due to shareholders dumping).

I would like to see some discussion on what will cause one clone to succeed over another (assuming stake distribution is their only difference). I think if the stake of a chain is more broadly distributed to more consumers willing to spend money, then merchants may elect to go with that chain since it maximizes their potential revenue. And consumers are more willing to buy stake in that chain since those tokens are the ones they are more likely to be able spend on goods/services.  This is a positive feedback loop that would cause that chain to grow compared to the alternatives until it reaches clear dominance. But I think this is very sensitive to many other factors. Hence, I think marketing and initial deals made can make or break the future of a particular chain.

At least this is how I see it. Please correct me if there is a flaw in my reasoning. It would most likely be a huge relief.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
for future press releases we also NEED to honor bitcoin .. they did an amazing job in

+ decentralized ledger in general
+ bringing the blockchain to the masses
+ talking politics/laws and regulations (pfff)
+ marketing in general

If we haven't had bitcoin (more precisly, satoshi) we would not stand where we are standing today ..
honor that!

I think the exact opposite approach. The Bitcoin community basically shunned Bitshares. We all saw how Dan Larimer and company were treated early on.

Ultimately it's all about innovation and I'm here because this is the most innovative crypto community. As long as we attract innovators, and we keep attracting bright minds willing to continuously build upon the innovations of Dan Larimer and company, we'll move forward.

Let all communities compete through innovation. No I don't think Bitcoin did a good job with marketing. It took them 5 years to get where they are today and their marketing was plagued with political intrigues, Silk Road drug accusations, scam accusations, etc...

It was really only until this year that marketing Bitcoin has become a bit easier. If you were in the community in 2013 you would understand how horrible Bitcoin marketing traditionally has been and really the turning point seems to have come from the community of speculators.

Bitcoin on Wall Street is why Bitcoin is starting to market itself more professionally. Bitshares is Wall Street 2.0. It's as innovative as Bitcoin was in 2009 in my opinion.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It seems everyone is in agreement and after thinking about it a little I have changed my tune regarding what the best marketing strategy is: it's best to deal with Bitcoin in a very sensitive manner so holders don't feel too threatened. The last thing I want is to spook Bitcoin holders into aggressively pursuing a BitShares X spin-off (okay, maybe the second last thing; the last thing I would want is for the technology to not end up working at all).

So what is the best way to get BTC holders to appreciate BitShares technology and increase network effect without motivating them to co-opt the technology for their own stake?

It's about innovation not network effect in my opinion. Bitcoiners will buy Bitshares while they laugh at it until it takes out Litecoin.

Why? Because it's about innovation and Bitcoin developers cannot innovate at the same rate of speed due to their legacy Proof of Work based infrastructure. They can try to clone things but a clone isn't going to do any good if the innovation comes from the main chain and the clone just copies.

So ultimately it's about a battle of minds, a contest of innovations, and I think that is best for the industry. Let's see which community has the best innovators because we all can benefit that way.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 01:47:55 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
It seems everyone is in agreement and after thinking about it a little I have changed my tune regarding what the best marketing strategy is: it's best to deal with Bitcoin in a very sensitive manner so holders don't feel too threatened. The last thing I want is to spook Bitcoin holders into aggressively pursuing a BitShares X spin-off (okay, maybe the second last thing; the last thing I would want is for the technology to not end up working at all).

So what is the best way to get BTC holders to appreciate BitShares technology and increase network effect without motivating them to co-opt the technology for their own stake?

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I was just thinking that this morning. If we have BTSX and BitUSD, there isn't a clear need for Bitcoin and its 40 minute transactions. And yet, we need to keep portraying this as something different, not a competitor. When people start using it more to pay for things and send/receive, if they find it superior and if all these Bitcoin-related processors and wallets and merchants decide to add BitUSD and/or BTSX, then that's the best kind of organic growth. Officially, we are not here to challenge Bitcoin.

Offline Murderistic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
for future press releases we also NEED to honor bitcoin .. they did an amazing job in

+ decentralized ledger in general
+ bringing the blockchain to the masses
+ talking politics/laws and regulations (pfff)
+ marketing in general

If we haven't had bitcoin (more precisly, satoshi) we would not stand where we are standing today ..
honor that!

Agreed.  Even though we are superior, we cannot just go knocking Bitcoin or we will lose many in that crowd.  They are smart and will figure out that this is better on thier own, we just keep showing features and let that do the talking.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 09:56:21 pm by Murderistic »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
for future press releases we also NEED to honor bitcoin .. they did an amazing job in

+ decentralized ledger in general
+ bringing the blockchain to the masses
+ talking politics/laws and regulations (pfff)
+ marketing in general

If we haven't had bitcoin (more precisly, satoshi) we would not stand where we are standing today ..
honor that!

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
This makes it the natural crypto-currency to use like a checking account.  You put money into Bitcoin just in time — when you are about ready to spend it. 

I don't think it is smart to advertise Bitcoin as a better checking account than BitShares X. I understand it has the network effect for now, but the technology is inherently inferior for consumer spending. First, 10 second block confirmation time means that merchants can directly accept the BitShares X tokens from customers as in-person payment for goods/services without needing to rely on third parties to protect them from any potential double-spend attacks. Second, if the BitAsset market peg works as is hoped, BitUSD protects the merchant from the volatility risk of accepting cryptocurrency. They could directly accept BitUSD and not have to rely on third parties like BitPay to immediately convert BTC to USD at the point-of-sale. I'd like to see the press releases accentuate these benefits not shy away from them.

I completely agree with you, but that final step will become obvious once 97% of BTC has been moved from checking to savings - folks will ask themselves "why do I want transactions at the checkout counter to take 10 to 30 minutes when my savings account only takes 10 seconds?"

But, to get there let current BTC lovers get used to the two-account checking-savings paradigm they already know.  Once they have a non-disloyal reason to try us... the rest will take care of itself.

When over half of the BTC users also have a BTSX savings account, merchants will face the "Visa vs. Mastercard" choice and eventually support both with the aid of third party abstraction services.  Once its possible to use BitShares everywhere, then it will be no contest to use BTSX for everything.

Meanwhile, no point in selling point-of-sale functions before they are widely available.  So early marketing messages emphasize why people need both

-- The preceding is the untrained opinion of a non marketing professional and may or may not contain valuable strategic insights.




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 arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
This makes it the natural crypto-currency to use like a checking account.  You put money into Bitcoin just in time — when you are about ready to spend it. 

I don't think it is smart to advertise Bitcoin as a better checking account than BitShares X. I understand it has the network effect for now, but the technology is inherently inferior for consumer spending. First, 10 second block confirmation time means that merchants can directly accept the BitShares X tokens from customers as in-person payment for goods/services without needing to rely on third parties to protect them from any potential double-spend attacks. Second, if the BitAsset market peg works as is hoped, BitUSD protects the merchant from the volatility risk of accepting cryptocurrency. They could directly accept BitUSD and not have to rely on third parties like BitPay to immediately convert BTC to USD at the point-of-sale. I'd like to see the press releases accentuate these benefits not shy away from them.

Offline MktDirector

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
I've been working 14 hr days...but cant wait to head up to VA in a few and bring everyone some bubbly.  Wait, do the devs drink anything other than questionable green drinks?? hmmmmm 

Offline Murderistic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Ripple is a goner, wait til China wakes up

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
We were ahead for a brief couple of minutes at least :D

That's fine. We danced with NXT for a few hours there also. The passage will be permanent soon enough.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
We were ahead for a couple of minutes at least :D

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I'm going to start regularly producing quality press releases for us.  Here are some titles for when we get into the #4 and #3 market cap spots.  Looks like #4 will be needed very soon as we briefly passed NXT, I'm told.  PR titles are very important as they determine if people even bother to read them.  Let me know what you think of these and please add suggestions! Let's get creative and have some fun.  B


#4 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Now Bigger Than NXT, says Ripple is Next.
BitSharesX Says Who’s Next After Passing NXT Today.
What’s Next For BitSharesX? Passing NXT To #4 Spot Today.
BitSharesX Zooming Up The Charts To #4 In The World.


#3 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Making Waves As It Swamps Ripple.
BitSharesX Wave Smashes Ripple.
Ripple Overtaken By BitSharesX Wave.
BitShares Tsunami Doesn't Spare Ripple.  (I know, silly, but hey)

Bitshares is the #3 spot now and is preying on Litecoin.

How about Bitshares shark?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 08:07:07 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
from skype:

[21:59:47] brianpage: We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.
[22:00:04] brianpage: tabitha....can you update social media...AGAIN? haha

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
BitShares X, I crown thee the King of 2.0!

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
There it is, we are past Ripple!!

« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 08:04:31 pm by CLains »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I'll sneak off and have a glass tonight.  The rest of the team is on a strict Red Bull and Pizza diet.
hope you let your guys out to get some fresh air .. at least in the nights so that their eys don't burn :)

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Am I wrong, or will this be the first time that a crypto-currency has passed Ripple based on its own organic growth? Auroracoin's volume was inflated by the airdrop. Has anyone else ever reached this territory? 

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Oh shi- you guys, we are already going to pass Ripple..

I vote for a press release that includes "sets sights on LTC"

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Please tell me you're taking pictures of the celebrations. For those of us that can't swing by VA I'd love to see the I3 (3I?) staff with some bubbly.
Once we are at 1$+ I will come to you guys and bring bubbly :)

I'll sneak off and have a glass tonight.  The rest of the team is on a strict Red Bull and Pizza diet.
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 donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Brian, I'm not sure you'll need any press releases. At this rate, you'll need some extra batteries for your phone!

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Please tell me you're taking pictures of the celebrations. For those of us that can't swing by VA I'd love to see the I3 (3I?) staff with some bubbly.
Once we are at 1$+ I will come to you guys and bring bubbly :)

Offline Riverhead

We just passed $1MM in 24 hour volume  :o  For those keeping score at home that's 10% of LTC's.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 07:12:33 pm by Riverhead »

Offline Riverhead


Please tell me you're taking pictures of the celebrations. For those of us that can't swing by VA I'd love to see the I3 (3I?) staff with some bubbly.

No, I won't cry "BS". 


Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
No, I won't cry "BS". 

In fact, I wrote the same thing in a draft press release that became obsolete before it could be released.  (I love the press release format because I get to quote myself.)

Here it is, for the record.  The rationale still applies even if some of the predictions are already overcome by events:

Quote

BitSharesX Targets #2 Rank in the Bitcoin Industry
Blacksburg, Virginia,  August 12, 2014

BitShares X made its first appearance at Number 6 on Monday, briefly bumping the venerable Peercoin from that rank among the 462 crypto currencies listed at coinmarketcap.com.

“Not a bad first month,” said Stan Larimer, president of Invictus Innovations, Inc., “but we think second place behind Bitcoin is just as likely by the end of its rookie year.” 

Invictus sees itself as a technology developer and advocate for this second-generation of crypto-equities — coins that contain “unmanned companies”.   But its founder, Daniel Larimer would rather view things the other way around.  “Bitcoin itself is just a first-generation unmanned company that implements a crypto-currency”, he said.  “Once you start thinking of these coins as potentially profitable companies, the sky is the limit for what you can do with them. Thanks to our open source software development toolkit, we expect to see a lot of unmanned companies launched in coming months.  BitShares X is just the first.”

Invictus doesn’t develop or launch such companies itself.  Instead, it supplies a library of innovative software called the BitShares Toolkit which it encourages third-party startups to customize for themselves.  Potential applications include banking, exchanges, insurance, music, gaming, voting, and namespace registration services to name a few.  “Any business that manages digital assets can likely benefit from the low overhead and robotically honest integrity of an unmanned company,” said Stan Larimer.  "We are just happy to serve as a behind-the-scenes industry advocate and start-up incubator.  We provide the enabling software tools, advocate our vision of their potential, and help start-up entrepreneurs tailor the technology for their unique markets, business models and legal jurisdictions."

DAC Sun Limited of Hong Kong is the first such startup to release a derivative from the BitShares Toolkit.  BitSharesX is their new unmanned bank and exchange as described on their BitShares-x.info web site. BitSharesX is a crypto-company designed to be regulated not by bureaucrats, but by transparent business rules implemented in open source software and operating on an incorruptible public ledger.   "This is a powerful new model for regulators," said Larimer.  “Now they can simply do a one-time audit of the hard-coded business logic of a company and know that it will remain in permanent compliance with those regulations. It also provides new levels of consumer protection in unbanked parts of the world and places plagued by government corruption or inadequate rule of law."

But why does Larimer think the #2 slot on coinmarketcap.com is easily within reach for BitSharesX?

“There are several good reasons”, said Larimer.  “First, there are unprecedented new levels of performance, ease of use, and privacy.  BitSharesX transactions are confirmed in 10 seconds, not the hour it can take for Bitcoin.  BitSharesX has a fresh new interface where users can refer to their accounts by name, not some unsightly crypto-address.  And all transactions are private with no relationship visible to the public between parties to a transaction.  So the whole system just feels better.  I find it invigorating.”

“Another reason is the value proposition”, he continued.  "Until recently, coins reached the top ten based mostly on their marketing.  They were designed to appeal to certain technical, philosophical, or meme-loving constituencies and gained market share by appealing to their hope of adoption by speculators seeking the next Bitcoin bonanza.  Now investors can begin to analyze new offerings rationally, based on their service features, business model and profit potential.  This is what excites us about BitSharesX. 

It reached number six with almost no marketing at all. 

All of its promotional growth still lies ahead of it!  We don’t think it will be hard at all to triple the number of people competing to own it.  That would move it into third place behind Litecoin.  Once that happens, it will become obvious that Litecoin is only in second place because it has always been in second place. Marketing it as “the silver to Bitcoin’s gold” will only work until something with the metaphorical utility of real silver comes along.  With that insight, the market will know what to do.  Tripling the level of awakening market interest at that point to take over second place seems like a no-brainer — assuming investors focus on fundamentals.”

“As for Bitcoin”, he concluded, “It will have an unassailable role for a long time because of name recognition, the network affect and its growing acceptance among merchants.  This makes it the natural crypto-currency to use like a checking account.  You put money into Bitcoin just in time — when you are about ready to spend it. 

What’s about to change is what you do with your crypto savings.

You want your savings to be safe from volatility and/or to earn you a rate of return.  Bitcoin doesn’t do that, but that’s the complementary role I see for BitSharesX.

Come to think of it, I only keep a few percent of my money in my checking account.  If a viable crypto savings account were to become available, I wonder where most of Bitcoin’s current market cap is going to flow?”
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 06:51:53 pm by Stan »
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 liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I know you will say I say bullshit... but I will say it just for the records...

until next month we surpass litecoin  ::) :-[

Offline soniq

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
    • View Profile
 
BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple  +5%

 +5%
Pr7V9GUm59dtKWXG6RJSymPsyCaCKWwNEj
Soniq on Bitcointalk -- Verified
Bitshares btsx:soniq

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: mrjeans
BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple  +5%

Offline G1ng3rBr34dM4n

#4
  • BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple
#3
  • BitSharesX Dominates Crypto 2.0 Market Cap, Sets sights on LTC
+5% those are not too aggresive and egoistic


I feel we want to be happy and proud without being mean. We're all in the same community and there's no reason we can't all be successful.

+5% I really like both of these.

Offline Riverhead

That said, there is a press release title in here somewhere I just can't dig it out:


- Ripple
- Jaws: We're going to need a bigger boat.



Offline Riverhead

#4
  • BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple
#3
  • BitSharesX Dominates Crypto 2.0 Market Cap, Sets sights on LTC
+5% those are not too aggresive and egoistic


I feel we want to be happy and proud without being mean. We're all in the same community and there's no reason we can't all be successful.


Offline MktDirector

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
WOW.  I thought I'd have more time....looks like I better get this to the press asap.....it just happened.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
#4
  • BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple
#3
  • BitSharesX Dominates Crypto 2.0 Market Cap, Sets sights on LTC
+5% those are not too aggresive and egoistic

Offline MktDirector

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
I love "Ripple Drowns."   :D

Offline Riverhead

#4
  • BitSharesX slides into the NXT slot. Waves at Ripple
#3
  • BitSharesX Dominates Crypto 2.0 Market Cap, Sets sights on LTC

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
I'm going to start regularly producing quality press releases for us.  Here are some titles for when we get into the #4 and #3 market cap spots.  Looks like #4 will be needed very soon as we briefly passed NXT, I'm told.  PR titles are very important as they determine if people even bother to read them.  Let me know what you think of these and please add suggestions! Let's get creative and have some fun.  B


#4 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Now Bigger Than NXT, says Ripple is Next.
BitSharesX Says Who’s Next After Passing NXT Today.
What’s Next For BitSharesX? Passing NXT To #4 Spot Today.
BitSharesX Zooming Up The Charts To #4 In The World.


#3 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Making Waves As It Swamps Ripple.
BitSharesX Wave Smashes Ripple.
Ripple Overtaken By BitSharesX Wave.
BitShares Tsunami Doesn't Spare Ripple.  (I know, silly, but hey)

I like What’s Next For BitSharesX? Passing NXT To #4 Spot Today. for #4 spot

for the #3: Ripple Drowns. BitsharesX reaches the Top 3 or Ripple Drowns. BitsharesX arrives at the Top 3 Beach.

or comparing BitsharesX to a snowball since it just keeps growing and growing!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 02:54:01 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
NXT was next! Who is next?

Offline MktDirector

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
I'm going to start regularly producing quality press releases for us.  Here are some titles for when we get into the #4 and #3 market cap spots.  Looks like #4 will be needed very soon as we briefly passed NXT, I'm told.  PR titles are very important as they determine if people even bother to read them.  Let me know what you think of these and please add suggestions! Let's get creative and have some fun.  B


#4 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Now Bigger Than NXT, says Ripple is Next.
BitSharesX Says Who’s Next After Passing NXT Today.
What’s Next For BitSharesX? Passing NXT To #4 Spot Today.
BitSharesX Zooming Up The Charts To #4 In The World.


#3 Spot PR:
BitSharesX Making Waves As It Swamps Ripple.
BitSharesX Wave Smashes Ripple.
Ripple Overtaken By BitSharesX Wave.
BitShares Tsunami Doesn't Spare Ripple.  (I know, silly, but hey)