I got very worried when I read the "vision blog post" by BM.
This Mutual Aid Society concept might make sense but not now.
BitShares Vision should have been called "My Vision for BitShares" since it
really is only the vision of Dan.
Also, BitShares is independent of Dan and CNX and you can have your OWN vision.
I think every feature that can be implemented in BitShares and makes it a
profitable business makes sense independent of the actual timing.
Yet again BitShares seems to be doing that terrible thing: avoiding stability and changing course.
I don't see BitShares change course. It actually never had a course, it had
several. You could say that Dan changed his course and interpretation as well as
his goals for BitShares, but it is not in his hands alone.
He also does NOT change any existing feature but merely ADDS a new feature
leaving existing features as stable as they are already.
And those suggestions "if you don't like BM's ideas just build your own stuff on BitShares" are just false.
With the current poor documentation and no real efforts to attract third-party developers, it is just not possible.
Even if you have an idea you are left alone with it.
Not sure why people blame "poor documentation". Have you read into the source
code already? It is well documented and very easy to read!
I know that for a fact because I tried to get into it even though I am not a
coder and yet here I am, knowing about the tech and the implementation.
Look at Moonstone. Look at BitShares-based ATMs by devlux. Look at Nexus by Rune.
Look at our roadmap - plenty of great ideas but no realistic chance to achieve them.
BitShares gives them a means to build a business. It does not make them
inherently profitable. The list of projects here have had very different reasons
to change course.
Even the migration process seems to be still unfinished.
How so? What does this have to do with the OP? Would you pay anyone for
improving the migration process? If not you can't expect anyone to do it for
you!
[qquote]
CNX is the bottleneck here and instead of focusing on documentation, education
and building a strong community of developers who will eliminate this
bottleneck, CNX is concerned about "vision".
[/quote]
So you want CNX to do all the work that no-one pays them for! Got it.
It's also not CNX concerning about vision, it is Dan and I very much appreciate
that he still has big plans for BitShares and sticks with it!
But I agree that CNX is a bottleneck. We need a lot more independent developers
joining and I am personally working hard to achieve exactly that.
BM, I wish your New Year's resolution was not a new attempt at leadership.
I wish it was the opposite - stepping down from this role.
Lol. Dan never was the leader, but the inventor. CNX is neither a dictator but
an innovator.
I don't think we need a leader at this stage.
What we need is someone who leverages his knowledge about the inner workings of Graphene and spreads this knowledge to the outside world.
Someone who creates tools for developers and opens up Graphene to become the blockchain equivalent of Android.
Sounds like a plan. Why don't YOU step up and do it?
Who are you to tell Dan what to do with his time and money?
In short, what we need is stable and friendly environment for developers and
businesses. Not a vision.
What exactly is unfriedly in our environment? Don't you get help when you need
it? Don't we contact businesses and reach out to them for integration? Are you?
The only thing I am concerned is that Dan/CNX is way too innovative to handle
the load alone. Just because people don't understand the concepts, innovations
and ideas technically does not mean they are bad ideas. what we need is to reach
decision makers attracted by our vision and ideas and only then have them
fascinated by our technology. </imho>