Abbreviating Cryptonomex as CMX. (Should it be CNX?)
1) Could BTS holders get revenue from licensing the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Still no.
Verdict: Same as before.
No, there was this whole theory of sharedropping from new chains. Your verdict is wrong.
2) Can the dev team get revenue from licensing the bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: No, it was open source.
* After CMX: Yes. If the core dev team generates revenue from this, then less dilution of BTS is required to support the dev team.
Verdict: Probably improves funding situation of Bitshares.
Your verdict is right but the way you got there is questionable.
3) Could competitors steal/copy Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes.
* After CMX: No, unless CMX lets them, which they *probably* wont do without getting compensation for BTS in some way. Unless you believe CMX will just completely screw over BTS holders. Which by the way, CMX collectively is a huge one of.
Verdict: Either the same as before if you dont trust that CMX cares about the future of Bitshares, or better if you do.
Well they have to steal it from pre-1.0 or they could always do it anonymously from bts 2.0 if their opsec is good and they find it worth their time. I've never heard that crytonomex will pay licensing fees back to BTS but I don't follow so closely anymore. It isn't that CMX doesn't care about Bitshares, I'm sure they do, but there are other things going on that have to be considered.
4) Can independent developers build new projects on the Bitshares toolkit?
* Before CMX: Yes. Hopefully they would sharedrop on BTS if they did, but there was no guarantee of this.
* After CMX: If they get permission of CMX. Hopefully CMX would ask for compensation ot BTS holders, such as a sharedrop.
Verdict: The same or better if CMX acts to benefit Bitshares. However, could potentially be worse if an independent developer is turned off by this, and chooses not to develop something and sharedrop on BTS?
With all the switching around directions etc it would appear the social consensus was effectively buried in the ground. The .9.2 codebase is probably decent enough for some things, but a toolkit it is not. The whole FC fiasco. I've never heard anyone speak positively about it. Yea, lets build a distributed p2p consensus toolkit/stack on software that is poorly documented and only one guy in the whole world promotes usage. .... really? yes!
5) Will dev team abandon Bitshares to pursue better opportunities? (Ex. 'job at google', 'build blockchain platform for goldman sachs', and other ideas of varying realisticness).
* Before CMX: This was always a possibility, especially when the funding situation was very dire. Which it still is at current prices, if their only revenue source was BTS dilution.
* After CMX: Still possible.
Verdict: If Goldman Sachs wanted to hire the Bitshares dev team away to work on a platform for them, then it doesnt really matter if they are referred to as 'The Bitshares Dev team' or 'Cryptonomex'. Its the same result.
Agreed.
Overall the change improves the funding situation significantly. It also prevents competitors from copying Bitshares. It might hurt the potential for third party development efforts.
Some people worry that the existence of Cryptonomex could make the dev team abandon Bitshares. That risk was present before, its not new. I don't think the new situation increases the risk at all. The best way to diminish this risk is for the crypto bear market to end.
I think cryptonomex is a definite positive for BTS but not for the original vision which the family pushed and us suckers ate it up. I'm glad that the developers are being paid more. I want to see BTS succeed, as I rebought at some point. If this is what needs to happen then so be it, but this putting lipstick on a pig is too much at times.
I do have a question though. I could swear devs were given 50k bonuses at the end of the year. Now I read 36k is all they've been paid. Is that 36k + 50k bonus or what? Is my memory wrong? Not that I care I've just learned to really question the family when they speak. I personally aided in chasing off some critics which I have grown to regret, but there is fair criticism and there is nonsense. Newmines jumps around between the 2.
I really think that Dan & crew have likely came up with a good set of functionality. I believe they learned a LOT from pre 1.0. This will add a lot of value to the project. It has far more potential than most all other crypto projects, yet the potential is still not what I felt it was a year ago.
I was hoping VC money came through and we got a new captain of sorts. When that PR thing was just blindly cut and pasted to the blog it showed the maturity of the Bitshares leader. I mean, if you know me well you know I can get all druuunnnk and send off crazy emails (even if the content is very wise
, so no one is perfect. However when you're the public leader and people have invested a lot of their time and effort then they deserve better, regardless of how you might feel about their altruism.