Quote from: AdamBLevine on April 20, 2014, 09:34:07 pm

Invictus needs to not change the deal again.

Do you really believe that every suggestion a member makes will change invictus businesses plan

-5%   from me

I've said AGS were a bad move since before they were introduced.  Should have just set up a roadmap with goals and asked PTS holders to donate in support of specific projects and objectives.

I'm not sure what you're talking about re: members, I'm talking about the proposal of this thread which is to change how Angelshares are handled now almost halfway through the program.  Yes, I think if the initiative were enacted as described by the OP it would be changing the deal, that seems pretty obvious.

It was weird. There was nothing substantive at all. It was like they woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day and decided to badmouth bitshares. I really like LTB but that episode was super sketchy. Kind of disappointing.

1 - Sovryn Tech is not Let's Talk Bitcoin, or on the LTB network.

2 - At Toronto the whisper was "Mastercoin is preparing to pay a big fine for taking less than a million USD in fundraising, and if they had taken more than 1 million it would be not possible to pay the fine and instead has harsher repercussions"  - Nobody wants to cause a panic, I suspect Brian was hedging his bets so if something happens to invictus he can say "Well I warned you" but not lock himself into saying the sky is falling if nothing winds up happening.   This message is definitely being stoked by the Ethereum people who feel it is a competitive advantage to have set up in Switzerland with whom they have good government contacts.

The problem with Bitshares is they started selling a product before they had one, and have had no problem taking money all along the way promoting whatever is currently being worked on.  As such, there are many people who feel they were sold a false bill of goods.  Those people can upturn the apple cart pretty badly if they sue Invictus, which will make the project very difficult to complete.

The problem of course with Invictus is there is no escape valve for the funds invested in the venture, so they don't care about investors. They already have the funds.  They just want to be left alone to work, which would be fine except they're still taking time to promote and network and pivot the vision based on what they think is right, but it's very seat-of-the-pants and makes me nervous. 

Mostly though, I think a lot of us feel like we are trapped.  Whether in PTS or AGS, selling now is to your detriment and Invictus can keep this up for as long as they want, individual supporters have no option but to wait.

Quote from: AdamBLevine on April 07, 2014, 09:39:12 pm

I introduced Mark to Daniel and Charles in Georgia this last October.

Why would Mark evangelize this project if he doesn't already have a stake in it?  There are many other projects trying to enable exactly the same thing.

Somehow III was able to bring Sergio Lerner on board. Perhaps what worked in that case would work in this.  I presume that the Angelfund could give Mark a stake for services rendered.

If there were long term, ecosystem oriented bounties (say, in the DNS and antispam space where Mark is very focused) that would provide a reason for him to get involved and work towards a big pot of gold that is going to go to somebody, so given his advantages and agenda it might be attractive.

The situation in cryptocurrency is evolving very quickly, I think we'll continue to find that old tactics stop working because the competition adopts them and they stop being differentiating features.

I introduced Mark to Daniel and Charles in Georgia this last October.

Why would Mark evangelize this project if he doesn't already have a stake in it?  There are many other projects trying to enable exactly the same thing.

Sounds good to me

Previously Invictus had planned to start sponsoring shows on the Let's Talk Bitcoin! network towards the end of March.  I believe they've changed their marketing strategy, but nobody has been in touch to update on it.  Someone from Invictus will be able to comment on this.

I like your idea but think there should 100% be a small but meaningful reward for successfully doing the job whose payment should be delayed by a decent period of time, say a week or a month that would allow any betrayal of trust to involve much of the vested time going unpaid. 

It would encourage those who want to scam the network to just do it immediately because they're not going to be paid for most of the good work performed once the betrayal is discovered.

In other words, fail fast.

True decentralization isn't necessary for everything, the important part is to prevent to monopoly of what is "correct".  So whether you do a random lottery or whatever, it should be attractive to the average user because lacking the average user you'll have only specialists and bad guys populating your trusted oracle system, and those aren't good odds.

So is the new ETA TBD?

Come on stan

Yesterday you said "we might do both" and today you said

"We found that it did not work well in most cases and only led frustration and disappointment on all sides.  We decided to try a more traditional approach of vetting and hiring people or companies with a proven track record and spending extra time to carefully define the requirements.  While we will still use bounties for smaller jobs, we are not interested at all in making much bigger bounties where there is an even bigger disappointment for everyone at the end."

That sure looks like a no.  Do you regularly say you are not interested at all in things you might later say yes to?   Is there any wonder why things are so unclear?

I am restricting my posts to you on single topic issues since you are so difficult to pin down even when your own words, from today, are staring you right in the face