BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: clout on October 17, 2015, 03:44:41 pm
-
As I see it, the devs have done phenomenal job understanding the implications of blockchain technology and designing a system that fully leverages this novel technology for a more transparent, robust and efficient financial network.
With that being said, they are trying to make an exchange without understand how to make an exchange. Time and time again they have added features that are not used by centralized exchanges that we must compete against. For example there was the "you get what you pay for" rule and now there is the margin rule which has lost several people substantial amounts of bitshares. Most disappointing is that these individuals are the ones that have the greatest level of interest in bitshares and would have used those bitshares to provide liquidity (like transwiser) or provide auxiliary services running atms or dedicated servers to maintain the network and provide value for the system indirectly.
Furthermore the reason for the short squeeze was a lack of coordination between the dev team and exchanges, particularly those exchanges that provide liquidity for the bitasset market. If a short wished to close his or her position they could not do so because yunbi, metaexchange and transwiser have not upgraded to 2.0. The short squeeze would have been mitigated if this were the case.
Additionally, Dan has made assumptions about which positions would be called by these price movements and this illiquid market that were not at all true. I had short positions that carried over from bitshares1.0 and all of those positions with an initial 3x collateral were margin called. My margin price for my positions was 0.025 cny which is a price that was not seen on exchanges that have been the backbone for bts trading for the past year, mainly yunbi and btc38. But of course delegates took their feeds from the one exchange that has been upgraded, the one exchange that has margin trading and can thereby drive down the price of bts such that the price on this exchange is 20% lower than the price on others, the one exchange that is clearly a more speculative market where pump and dump groups do their trading.
I know Dan's intentions are good but time and time again he has been wrong in judging the dynamics of the market that bitshares finds itself, which has subsequently driven the bts price down to the levels we see now. I no longer trust the dev team or Dan to do what is in the best interest of Bitshares. I can no longer promote bitshares to friends, because they have already lost more than $100,000 from this venture and the dev team and cryptonomex have little to know idea how to secure outside funding.
If we want bitshares to be competitive to other exchanges we have to take the same business models as these exchanges.
- We have to lower fees, which means lower trading fees (transfer fees can stay the same) and there needs to be no deposit and withdrawal fee (currently at about 2% each way via blocktrade.us).
- We need to incentivize liquidity providers in the primary markets we wish to target. That means getting exchanges to open bitasset markets. That means reducing fees for those that create liquidity on the internal exchange.
- We need improve the user interface so that it is comparable to what traders are accustomed ( Graph of historical trade price at the top, order form beneath this graph, order book beneath order form and not on the side in weird format that we find it now. )
- We need to stop advertising bitshares as a cryptocurrency and just advertise it as an exchange. People don't care how technology works they just want the same level of convenience that they are accustomed to on other platforms.
Lastly, to those that say the price doesn't matter, the price fucking matters. The price factors into the security of the network, the price factors into the provision of our core product (bitassets) and the price factors into the perception of the general crypto community from which we are trying to generate new membership. Dan stop doing things that kill the price of bts, because you are effectively killing the potential of a system that is better than alternative solutions a system which you have tirelessly worked on for the past 2 and half years.
We need to vote in new committee members and more decentralize control of the network. Dan has said that he wanted this network to work autonomously without the need for his intervention, the current system allows for that and we as a community need to come together and provide better oversight of the network's functionality and business model. This whole centralized system of governance where Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop.
That's my rant for the day. I'm thoroughly pissed off. Please add any additional grievances to this thread so that we can address them as soon as possible.
-
Remember you are trading an ultra high risk and volatile asset... I don't understand why you are so angry when the risk of total loss has been there and stated since the very begining. Yes high reward can come, but the risk doesn't disappear.
These things mentioned above have also been thought about by the dev's for the last year... making knee jerk decisions is not how business's are run, including the centralized exchanges you mention above. Tweeks are viable, but changing the fee structure now after it has been up for debate for months would be stupid.
We are trying to change the current paradigm of money exchange. Copying what the incumbent exchanges are doing won't result in anything but our project's death. Real change and improvement happens when we step out of our comfort zone and challenge the status quo.
I'm sorry you lost money, but you are talking in absolutes and out of emotion. Wildly accusing Dan of killing the project is totally out of line. He has worked tirelessly on the project and is one of the brightest minds in crypto. You are incredibly lucky to have him working on this project.
-
Remember you are trading an ultra high risk and volatile asset... I don't understand why you are so angry when the risk of total loss has been there and stated since the very begining. Yes high reward can come, but the risk doesn't disappear.
These things mentioned above have also been thought about by the dev's for the last year... making knee jerk decisions is not how business's are run, including the centralized exchanges you mention above. Tweeks are viable, but changing the fee structure now after it has been up for debate for months would be stupid.
We are trying to change the current paradigm of money exchange. Copying what the incumbent exchanges are doing won't result in anything but our project's death. Real change and improvement happens when we step out of our comfort zone and challenge the status quo.
I'm sorry you lost money, but you are talking in absolutes and out of emotion. Wildly accusing Dan of killing the project is totally out of line. He has worked tirelessly on the project and is one of the brightest minds in crypto. You are incredibly lucky to have him working on this project.
Clout is frustrated and venting his anger. We should commiserate with him. What happened was bad, and the assumption that was taken without informing others is detrimental. Voicing our problems is the only way we can make bitshares better.
If the new BTS 2.0 was truly developed and is implemented, what happened to the BITUSD shoudl nto be an issue. The feed does not have much influence in the new BTS 2.0 implement with 24h settlements. I just don't know why nobody has created an asset for it and is trading on it.
-
+5%
-
If funds were lost due to an upgrade those funds should be refunded if they can prove it.
-
@alt: +5% to what?
My take away from clout's OP is something I see a serious lack of concern for: campaigns and discussions about governance. As a witness I have made my choice of roles, which puts me in a politically neutral position. Does that mean I have no opinion? Of course not! I'm expressing it now, which is
Let the Games Begin!
I want to see people step up and take responsibility for the direction this ecosystem is headed. You want change? THEN BE AN AGENT FOR IT and stop putting it onto someone else to do for you.
If this community fails to do so it only proves DPoS is an abject failure, just like the American experiment and trust in The Constitution is. If you want change you need to be willing to work for it. You now have the tools, GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!
-
@lil_jay890 My problem is not that I have lost money. I am not a risk adverse individual and the money I have lost doesn't really affect me as I'm not using for anything other than speculative investments. My problem is that over the past two years, every change that was supposed to be good for bitshares has driven the price down to where we see it now. I can't in good conscience tell anyone else to invest in bitshares because I can't say that there won't be an arbitrary change that confuses the market and drives down the price of bts further. As the price of bitshares goes down so does the capital available to create an infrastructure around this network. I think you misunderstood my grievance as personal. It is not it is one we all share and if not corrected this project will not get where it needs to be and the more centralized alternatives like hyperledger, SETL, and ripple will win out and bitshares will go the way of bitcoin.
Last night I had a discussion with a friend of mine that I was trying to get to invest in bitshares. He is really into now as I sold the value proposition well. The one concern he had was the trust model. He said "someone is creating this code and I have to trust that person. why would I trust them", to which I responded you don't have to trust them you just have to trust the code which is open source. I now realize the flaw in that logic as you very much have to trust the coders behind this project and I no longer trust them. That's not to say I don't think Dan has the best intentions, but there is a divergence between intention and outcome and I can no longer trust that the well intentioned proposal or course of action will beget the best outcome. I simply don't trust Cryptonomex in that capacity anymore.
In regards to your comment about copying incumbents. Where we should not copy incumbents is in their lack of transparency and incompetent management of user funds, which is why we utilize the blockchain as the back bone of our operation. We shouldn't reinvent the wheel and assume growth when there is no growth. We should not create barriers to user acquisition. In a competitive market, the players that win out are those that provide the highest quality service for the lowest price. We are not doing that now, which ultimately will lead to the death of bitshares.
-
As I see it, the devs have done phenomenal job understanding the implications of blockchain technology and designing a system that fully leverages this novel technology for a more transparent, robust and efficient financial network.
With that being said, they are trying to make an exchange without understand how to make an exchange. Time and time again they have added features that are not used by centralized exchanges that we must compete against. For example there was the "you get what you pay for" rule and now there is the margin rule which has lost several people substantial amounts of bitshares. Most disappointing is that these individuals are the ones that have the greatest level of interest in bitshares and would have used those bitshares to provide liquidity (like transwiser) or provide auxiliary services running atms or dedicated servers to maintain the network and provide value for the system indirectly.
Furthermore the reason for the short squeeze was a lack of coordination between the dev team and exchanges, particularly those exchanges that provide liquidity for the bitasset market. If a short wished to close his or her position they could not do so because yunbi, metaexchange and transwiser have not upgraded to 2.0. The short squeeze would have been mitigated if this were the case.
Additionally, Dan has made assumptions about which positions would be called by these price movements and this illiquid market that were not at all true. I had short positions that carried over from bitshares1.0 and all of those positions with an initial 3x collateral were margin called. My margin price for my positions was 0.025 cny which is a price that was not seen on exchanges that have been the backbone for bts trading for the past year, mainly yunbi and btc38. But of course delegates took their feeds from the one exchange that has been upgraded, the one exchange that has margin trading and can thereby drive down the price of bts such that the price on this exchange is 20% lower than the price on others, the one exchange that is clearly a more speculative market where pump and dump groups do their trading.
I know Dan's intentions are good but time and time again he has been wrong in judging the dynamics of the market that bitshares finds itself, which has subsequently driven the bts price down to the levels we see now. I no longer trust the dev team or Dan to do what is in the best interest of Bitshares. I can no longer promote bitshares to friends, because they have already lost more than $100,000 from this venture and the dev team and cryptonomex have little to know idea how to secure outside funding.
If we want bitshares to be competitive to other exchanges we have to take the same business models as these exchanges.
- We have to lower fees, which means lower trading fees (transfer fees can stay the same) and there needs to be no deposit and withdrawal fee (currently at about 2% each way via blocktrade.us).
- We need to incentivize liquidity providers in the primary markets we wish to target. That means getting exchanges to open bitasset markets. That means reducing fees for those that create liquidity on the internal exchange.
- We need improve the user interface so that it is comparable to what traders are accustomed ( Graph of historical trade price at the top, order form beneath this graph, order book beneath order form and not on the side in weird format that we find it now. )
- We need to stop advertising bitshares as a cryptocurrency and just advertise it as an exchange. People don't care how technology works they just want the same level of convenience that they are accustomed to on other platforms.
Lastly, to those that say the price doesn't matter, the price fucking matters. The price factors into the security of the network, the price factors into the provision of our core product (bitassets) and the price factors into the perception of the general crypto community from which we are trying to generate new membership. Dan stop doing things that kill the price of bts, because you are effectively killing the potential of a system that is better than alternative solutions a system which you have tirelessly worked on for the past 2 and half years.
We need to vote in new committee members and more decentralize control of the network. Dan has said that he wanted this network to work autonomously without the need for his intervention, the current system allows for that and we as a community need to come together and provide better oversight of the network's functionality and business model. This whole centralized system of governance where Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop.
That's my rant for the day. I'm thoroughly pissed off. Please add any additional grievances to this thread so that we can address them as soon as possible.
+ 1 on all that. These are my thoughts and experience... written in way calmer tone, cause "thoroughly pissed off" does not even begin to describe it.
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
-
From my sight, problem is lack of business mind, and aim too high but solve no real business problem for now.
Must admit the dev team have done a lot good work.
-
From my sight, problem is lack of business mind, and aim too high but solve no real business problem for now.
Must admit the dev team have done a lot good work.
I agree with you entirely.
-
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
What change which "was kept secret" are you referring to?
-
My problem is that over the past two years, every change that was supposed to be good for bitshares has driven the price down to where we see it now. I can't in good conscience tell anyone else to invest in bitshares because I can't say that there won't be an arbitrary change that confuses the market and drives down the price of bts further.
You totally ignored my response clout, and I feel it is central to the issue of how will BitShares become successful. So why don't YOU step up and do something about it? YOU can, if only you choose to do so. Don't just armchair quarterback and and let others shape BitShares, be responsible and help make it happen with a meaningful contribution.
What I so often see when it comes to issues of marketcap / BTS price is a total lack of commitment to the vision of BitShares. It is that vision that has kept me here despite the many blunders BM & team have made. I too become disillusioned at times when I see the same mistakes repeated.
But WE can end that if we take the responsible role of governance away from CNX and into the hands of a committee of those who are committed to the BitShares vision and can lead the community by setting goals and priorities.
That can probably not happen in the short term, as CNX is this community's only source of programming talent with enough knowledge, time and resources to make significant changes in the near term. What CAN happen now is identifying specific people from this community to serve on the committee, to draft worker proposals, and identify specific problems and a plan to solve them. Consensus starts with discussion.
Fuzzy has a separate thread aiming to identify the problems and hopefully a plan to resolve them.
It all starts with proactive individuals. Will you be one of them or just a nay saying armchair quarterback?
-
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
What change which "was kept secret" are you referring to?
BM's new reinvented, better and improved square wheel - aka the new margin call rules.
-
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
What change which "was kept secret" are you referring to?
BM's new reinvented, better and improved square wheel - aka the new margin call rules.
Can we talk a little bit about what solutions are? I would love to learn about that from people who know their stuff on the trading floor.
-
Furthermore the reason for the short squeeze was a lack of coordination between the dev team and exchanges, particularly those exchanges that provide liquidity for the bitasset market. If a short wished to close his or her position they could not do so because yunbi, metaexchange and transwiser have not upgraded to 2.0. The short squeeze would have been mitigated if this were the case.
Additionally, Dan has made assumptions about which positions would be called by these price movements and this illiquid market that were not at all true. I had short positions that carried over from bitshares1.0 and all of those positions with an initial 3x collateral were margin called. My margin price for my positions was 0.025 cny which is a price that was not seen on exchanges that have been the backbone for bts trading for the past year, mainly yunbi and btc38.
As I understand it, what you are saying is that it's BM's fault that the external exchanges have not upgraded in time.
Also, you knew the migration event could be a bit rough for various technical reasons and were given a 30 day notice to close your positions if you did not want this extra risk. You chose to carry on regardless.
But of course delegates took their feeds from the one exchange that has been upgraded, the one exchange that has margin trading and can thereby drive down the price of bts such that the price on this exchange is 20% lower than the price on others, the one exchange that is clearly a more speculative market where pump and dump groups do their trading.
Even if it's true that Poloniex is the only exchange that has upgraded, would you really prefer that the 2.0 witnesses took their feed from exchanges that have NOT upgraded?
I know Dan's intentions are good but time and time again he has been wrong in judging the dynamics of the market that bitshares finds itself, which has subsequently driven the bts price down to the levels we see now. I no longer trust the dev team or Dan to do what is in the best interest of Bitshares. I can no longer promote bitshares to friends, because they have already lost more than $100,000 from this venture and the dev team and cryptonomex have little to know idea how to secure outside funding.
I think BM's only mistakes were these two:
- releasing the GUI a bit prematurely
- not taking enough care of the migration process
So I think your rant is totally off target.
-
My problem is that over the past two years, every change that was supposed to be good for bitshares has driven the price down to where we see it now. I can't in good conscience tell anyone else to invest in bitshares because I can't say that there won't be an arbitrary change that confuses the market and drives down the price of bts further.
You totally ignored my response clout, and I feel it is central to the issue of how will BitShares become successful. So why don't YOU step up and do something about it? YOU can, if only you choose to do so. Don't just armchair quarterback and and let others shape BitShares, be responsible and help make it happen with a meaningful contribution.
What I so often see when it comes to issues of marketcap / BTS price is a total lack of commitment to the vision of BitShares. It is that vision that has kept me here despite the many blunders BM & team have made. I too become disillusioned at times when I see the same mistakes repeated.
But WE can end that if we take the responsible role of governance away from CNX and into the hands of a committee of those who are committed to the BitShares vision and can lead the community by setting goals and priorities.
That can probably not happen in the short term, as CNX is this community's only source of programming talent with enough knowledge, time and resources to make significant changes in the near term. What CAN happen now is identifying specific people from this community to serve on the committee, to draft worker proposals, and identify specific problems and a plan to solve them. Consensus starts with discussion.
Fuzzy has a separate thread aiming to identify the problems and hopefully a plan to resolve them.
It all starts with proactive individuals. Will you be one of them or just a nay saying armchair quarterback?
If the community can back my efforts here I know what I'm doing. Ironically most of this is not new to me. Never in my entire life did I think I would say that leading guilds in WoW would eventually lead me to do something with a paradigm changing technology...but it is as true as anything I know.
But regardless my knowledge on this subject, this is not a gaming world where I have read books on how the in-game mechanics work--we still need those basic books written. So I need you all to help me put together a monster manual (problems) and their attributes so we can define the weapons (expertise) and resources (capital) we need to get the job done.
Thank you for your vote of confidence thom...but I will need others to eventually step up to help me create quests (goals). I work a full time job, watch my baby during the day (while my wife works) and do this when they are both sleeping and throughout the day when Jericho is sleeping. My personal resources are low in both time and investment capital, but if people help me with their own efforts, I think we can not only build a solid infrastructure, but brownies will represent the demographic who BUILT it...
So lets think of this a little differently: if brownies are sent out to the community members who build the basic infrastructure and perform other critical tasks for bitshares (in the absence of obvious 3rd parties to do so), they would be one hell of a sharedrop target...wouldn't they? And if BTS becomes huge, wouldn't that mean that brownies might someday be like a Berkeshire Hathaway stock of sharedrop tokens in the BitShares ecosystem?
-
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
What change which "was kept secret" are you referring to?
BM's new reinvented, better and improved square wheel - aka the new margin call rules.
Can we talk a little bit about what solutions are? I would love to learn about that from people who know their stuff on the trading floor.
sure...after I see my fare share of brownie equivalent in BTS + 750,000 BTS losses from the secret new rule for stealing money out of the shorts, both safely deposeted in my wallet.
-
I know Dan's intentions are good but time and time again he has been wrong in judging the dynamics of the market that bitshares finds itself, which has subsequently driven the bts price down to the levels we see now. I no longer trust the dev team or Dan to do what is in the best interest of Bitshares.
Initially I thought the same. He has good intention, then every decision he made sucks made me doubt his intention now. From the beginning, no matter what he said, he never pay less to himself. He changes company name three times, project name four times just to suck more money from outside. Larimers have become the dictators and change the rule whenever they want. Bullshitting a lot and sell before you realize. I'm not surprise they are thrown into jail in near future.
-
My problem is that over the past two years, every change that was supposed to be good for bitshares has driven the price down to where we see it now. I can't in good conscience tell anyone else to invest in bitshares because I can't say that there won't be an arbitrary change that confuses the market and drives down the price of bts further.
You totally ignored my response clout, and I feel it is central to the issue of how will BitShares become successful. So why don't YOU step up and do something about it? YOU can, if only you choose to do so. Don't just armchair quarterback and and let others shape BitShares, be responsible and help make it happen with a meaningful contribution.
What I so often see when it comes to issues of marketcap / BTS price is a total lack of commitment to the vision of BitShares. It is that vision that has kept me here despite the many blunders BM & team have made. I too become disillusioned at times when I see the same mistakes repeated.
But WE can end that if we take the responsible role of governance away from CNX and into the hands of a committee of those who are committed to the BitShares vision and can lead the community by setting goals and priorities.
That can probably not happen in the short term, as CNX is this community's only source of programming talent with enough knowledge, time and resources to make significant changes in the near term. What CAN happen now is identifying specific people from this community to serve on the committee, to draft worker proposals, and identify specific problems and a plan to solve them. Consensus starts with discussion.
Fuzzy has a separate thread aiming to identify the problems and hopefully a plan to resolve them.
It all starts with proactive individuals. Will you be one of them or just a nay saying armchair quarterback?
What you just said is "You can be the difference, but oh wait CNX actually controls the network so you probably wouldn't be able to make a difference at this time." That's what I got out of your comment.
Not everyone has the time to be central role in the governance model. People raised concerns about having the bitasset market operational while exchanges had not upgraded and Dan said no that's not a problem so witness went along with it. Witnesses just do what dan says other wise they get voted out. Dan shouldn't be in charge of business decisions. He's smart but not business savvy and definitely doesn't understand the difference between theory and practice.
You're right to say that we need new committee members. That's something i advocate for in the OP. But what happens when those committee members disagree with Dan? Will they be voted out before any proposal has a chance to take affect? What we need first and foremost is to establish a robust network of proxys which Dan/CNX should divide their voting power between. This is where the real decentralization occurs. Dan should at this point rely more on the community to make decisions and stop this paternalistic mindset where he feels he knows best of all how business should be conducted and the market should be defined, because he doesn't and we've seen that with iteration after iteration of the market engine.
The problem I really have with your response is that you say YOU can do this, YOU should do that, not taking into consideration the tragedy of the commons we have before us. It is not in my best interest to expend my energy and resources if others will not do the same. It is not YOU and ME that must do these things, it is WE as a collective that must do these things, otherwise none of these haphazard attempts at changing the management and structure of this project will work.
-
The thing I find extremely suspicious is why this change was kept secret from everyone... every other change was announced.
So it is not only " Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop. " but "decides the rules and keeps them secret."
What change which "was kept secret" are you referring to?
BM's new reinvented, better and improved square wheel - aka the new margin call rules.
Can we talk a little bit about what solutions are? I would love to learn about that from people who know their stuff on the trading floor.
sure...after I see my brownie equivalent BTS + 750,000 BTS losses from the secret new rule for stealing money out of the shorts, both safely deposeted in my wallet.
Did you attend the hangout? They discussed it there. I don't know it was a "secret"...or at least not intentionally. Not that it feels any better :/
-
Furthermore the reason for the short squeeze was a lack of coordination between the dev team and exchanges, particularly those exchanges that provide liquidity for the bitasset market. If a short wished to close his or her position they could not do so because yunbi, metaexchange and transwiser have not upgraded to 2.0. The short squeeze would have been mitigated if this were the case.
Additionally, Dan has made assumptions about which positions would be called by these price movements and this illiquid market that were not at all true. I had short positions that carried over from bitshares1.0 and all of those positions with an initial 3x collateral were margin called. My margin price for my positions was 0.025 cny which is a price that was not seen on exchanges that have been the backbone for bts trading for the past year, mainly yunbi and btc38.
As I understand it, what you are saying is that it's BM's fault that the external exchanges have not upgraded in time.
Also, you knew the migration event could be a bit rough for various technical reasons and were given a 30 day notice to close your positions if you did not want this extra risk. You chose to carry on regardless.
Under the previous system I would not have been margin called and if I had I would not have been subject to an additional 50% loss. The changes to these rules were not well defined.
But of course delegates took their feeds from the one exchange that has been upgraded, the one exchange that has margin trading and can thereby drive down the price of bts such that the price on this exchange is 20% lower than the price on others, the one exchange that is clearly a more speculative market where pump and dump groups do their trading.
Even if it's true that Poloniex is the only exchange that has upgraded, would you really prefer that the 2.0 witnesses took their feed from exchanges that have NOT upgraded?
No, the bitasset market should not be operational at the moment
I know Dan's intentions are good but time and time again he has been wrong in judging the dynamics of the market that bitshares finds itself, which has subsequently driven the bts price down to the levels we see now. I no longer trust the dev team or Dan to do what is in the best interest of Bitshares. I can no longer promote bitshares to friends, because they have already lost more than $100,000 from this venture and the dev team and cryptonomex have little to know idea how to secure outside funding.
I think BM's only mistakes were these two:
- releasing the GUI a bit prematurely
- not taking enough care of the migration process
So I think your rant is totally off target.
How is my rant off target when I mentioned those as my two biggest concerns. You don't get that I'm not bitching about losing money. I don't care about the money, I care about where bitshares is going to be in the next 5 years. Given Dan and company's inability take care of the little things when they matter most (like coordinating the upgrade of exchanges) their total lack of business acumen I just don't know anymore where bitshares will be in the long term. The market continues to speak to this lack of confidence in their decision making abilities. This isn't a rant about me. This is a rant about the opportunity cost that these blunders create. If you don't get that so be it, but your response to my OP shouldn't be you made a risky bet stop bitching. You clearly don't understand the broader implications of what it means if the most invested members of the community continually getting burned.
-
To be honest, I agree it is time for more people to take the reigns of power in their own places but in order to become one of those people it first requires we commit effort and gain trust. Those things are not built overnight :/
Everyone honestly needs to take a breath. None of us (who think straight) ever thought this would be perfect or easy. BitShares is NOT just another cryptocurrency--that sits there and just gets passed back and forth. It is attempting stuff that most cryptocurrencies can't even begin to imagine doing. So I look at this as a time to buy in because these little changes that cause big waves will eventually even back out and those who held during the storm will come out with a smile on their faces.
-
But of course delegates took their feeds from the one exchange that has been upgraded, the one exchange that has margin trading and can thereby drive down the price of bts such that the price on this exchange is 20% lower than the price on others, the one exchange that is clearly a more speculative market where pump and dump groups do their trading.
Even if it's true that Poloniex is the only exchange that has upgraded, would you really prefer that the 2.0 witnesses took their feed from exchanges that have NOT upgraded?
We, the witnesses, found out a possible bad feed coming from an exchange but it is not poloniex. It is another exchange. We are investigating further on this.
-
My problem is that over the past two years, every change that was supposed to be good for bitshares has driven the price down to where we see it now. I can't in good conscience tell anyone else to invest in bitshares because I can't say that there won't be an arbitrary change that confuses the market and drives down the price of bts further.
You totally ignored my response clout, and I feel it is central to the issue of how will BitShares become successful. So why don't YOU step up and do something about it? YOU can, if only you choose to do so. Don't just armchair quarterback and and let others shape BitShares, be responsible and help make it happen with a meaningful contribution.
What I so often see when it comes to issues of marketcap / BTS price is a total lack of commitment to the vision of BitShares. It is that vision that has kept me here despite the many blunders BM & team have made. I too become disillusioned at times when I see the same mistakes repeated.
But WE can end that if we take the responsible role of governance away from CNX and into the hands of a committee of those who are committed to the BitShares vision and can lead the community by setting goals and priorities.
That can probably not happen in the short term, as CNX is this community's only source of programming talent with enough knowledge, time and resources to make significant changes in the near term. What CAN happen now is identifying specific people from this community to serve on the committee, to draft worker proposals, and identify specific problems and a plan to solve them. Consensus starts with discussion.
Fuzzy has a separate thread aiming to identify the problems and hopefully a plan to resolve them.
It all starts with proactive individuals. Will you be one of them or just a nay saying armchair quarterback?
What you just said is "You can be the difference, but oh wait CNX actually controls the network so you probably wouldn't be able to make a difference at this time." That's what I got out of your comment.
Not everyone has the time to be central role in the governance model. People raised concerns about having the bitasset market operational while exchanges had not upgraded and Dan said no that's not a problem so witness went along with it. Witnesses just do what dan says other wise they get voted out. Dan shouldn't be in charge of business decisions. He's smart but not business savvy and definitely doesn't understand the difference between theory and practice.
You're right to say that we need new committee members. That's something i advocate for in the OP. But what happens when those committee members disagree with Dan? Will they be voted out before any proposal has a chance to take affect? What we need first and foremost is to establish a robust network of proxys which Dan/CNX should divide their voting power between. This is where the real decentralization occurs. Dan should at this point rely more on the community to make decisions and stop this paternalistic mindset where he feels he knows best of all how business should be conducted and the market should be defined, because he doesn't and we've seen that with iteration after iteration of the market engine.
The problem I really have with your response is that you say YOU can do this, YOU should do that, not taking into consideration the tragedy of the commons we have before us. It is not in my best interest to expend my energy and resources if others will not do the same. It is not YOU and ME that must do these things, it is WE as a collective that must do these things, otherwise none of these haphazard attempts at changing the management and structure of this project will work.
There's a lot of wisdom in your response clout, and you're right about most of it.
I can appreciate your perspective regarding "your best interests", I don't disagree in principle. However you clearly have some level of interest in BitShares, I just don't see the commitment to back it up; you don't have the vision it seems to me.
You saw a contradiction in what I said, that is understandable from a short term perspective. However from a longer term perspective I'm not sure I can agree.
All we can do is act for ourselves, not as a collective. All I am saying is that if you believe in the vision of what BitShares can become then do your part to make it happen and protect your personal interest in it. Not getting involved abdicates your responsibility to others.
Take a risk, try to make a difference. Step up your investment by committing yourself to the project's governance, wrestle it out of the hands of BM and help make it what YOU want to see it become. BM has said on many occasions he does not want to be in the leadership role of the ecosystem, but it will remain that way until people step up to change it.
We need people of passion to do this, or DPoS WILL fail, just like America IS FAILING.
-
Under the previous system I would not have been margin called and if I had I would not have been subject to an additional 50% loss. The changes to these rules were not well defined.
I referred to your OP, where you mention many things but NOT the rules-being-secretly-changed issue. This was raised later on by tonyk. Your original rant was about exchanges not being upgraded in time and witnesses taking price feeds mainly from Poloniex. And I replied that I thought it was quite ridiculous to blame BM for that. Especially when you say:
This whole centralized system of governance where Dan arbitrarily decides the rules needs to stop.
So you need to make up your mind: do you want BM to take care of everything (including the reliability of price feeds and relationships with external exchanges) or do you want BM's role to be reduced? If the latter, the community itself needs to take on those responsibilities (as Thom rightly says) and stop relying in every aspect on BM.
No, the bitasset market should not be operational at the moment
And who was to decide that? BM? So you want him to be the ultimate decision maker or not?
If you think the bitasset market was not reliable after the 2.0 launch you should have closed your short positions immediately when you realized that. What makes you think BM was in a better position to make those judgements on behalf of everyone else while you could not make a similar decision yourself regrading your own money. All I'm saying is just take more responsibility for your own actions, clout.
Not everyone has the time to be central role in the governance model. People raised concerns about having the bitasset market operational while exchanges had not upgraded and Dan said no that's not a problem so witness went along with it.
"Witnesses went along with it" - so why is your rant directed at BM, and not the witnesses?
Witnesses just do what dan says other wise they get voted out. Dan shouldn't be in charge of business decisions. He's smart but not business savvy and definitely doesn't understand the difference between theory and practice.
That's not BM fault that almost nobody else cares to vote, is it? He has said multiple times in the Mumble session that he wants to have less and less influnce on BTS but it us (the community) who need to fill in the void to make it happen.
How is my rant off target when I mentioned those as my two biggest concerns.
No, clout, you're making this up. Your main concern was that the price feeds were wrong, not that the GUI is unfinished or the migration process is clumsy.
Given Dan and company's inability take care of the little things when they matter most (like coordinating the upgrade of exchanges) their total lack of business acumen I just don't know anymore where bitshares will be in the long term.
Again, you're bitching about "Dan being unable to take care of the little things". But is BM really supposed to take care of the "little things"? Isn't it our (i.e. the community's) responsibility? And if we fail we should blame nobody but ourselves. BitShares is a community project, not BM's private company.
Furthermore the reason for the short squeeze was a lack of coordination between the dev team and exchanges, particularly those exchanges that provide liquidity for the bitasset market.
Again, you expected BM to coordinate. But why didn't the community check if the exchanges were informed and ready? You want BM to be responsible for everything and the same time you want him to step down.
The funny thing is that the problem is not BM clinging to power. The problem is our inability to take on the responsibilities that BM is clearly not very good at. He wants to give them to us. But for some reasons (unknown to me) we are not willing to take them.
-
Just take a step back and look at the big picture. Bitshares 2.0 is a week old and needs someone to hold its hand and guide it while it grows. A baby needs to be nurtured and needs to trust it's parents in order to survive. Only as it grows older and more aware under the nurture of a higher authority does it realize it is time to start thinking and doing things for itself.
Bitshares is a baby now and Dan is the care taker. He knows the system better than anyone and I am happy to have him raise bitshares until we as a community become proficient with the system.
-
And suddenly we all became insiders, and it was all real, and now we're talking..
Leaving aside the "blame game" most of the criticism is constructive and I agree this is the time to focus. Better to have a monopoly in a small bowl than swim around in the ocean of banks and exchanges, meaning for us: focus on our decentralized exchange with ease of use, including decent on/off ramps. The crypto community is our primary target, as they are already in the know and can join us in further developing this into something great.
All eyes and ears have been on BitShares in the last few weeks in a way that I have never seen in this space, which signals the beginning of the cryptocommunity at large being secure and comfortable with the horizon and "galaxy rise" beyond Bitcoin. For the time being, lets just be a small sun in that large opening, slowly gathering the love and respect from our fellow crypto-heads, we'll gain community to build and expand to other worlds, other stars.
-
@jakub I did not equivocate one bit. I want Dan's power reduced. I want more decentralized governance, I want more transparency which would allow for more community involvement. What I have said throughout my post is that I trusted CNX to manage bitshares better. I know longer trust that they will make the right business decisions. We need to open up the management of this exchange to the community. We need to put together a checklist, prioritize each item and delegate task among community members. We need to establish trusted proxy voters. We must establish trusted committee members. We need to leverage the proposal system.
My point is that we shouldn't trust bytemaster to manage everything we should start making bitshares an actual company dividing up responsibilities in a transparent fashion, allowing for greater accountability.
My OP was a personal anecdote. But my message has far less to do with me, or BM than you suggest. This is a message to the community that we have to change things around. We have to turn this project into a company and we have to provide a better service than our competitors.
-
Given Dan and company's inability take care of the little things when they matter most (like coordinating the upgrade of exchanges) their total lack of business acumen
That leaved me a bad taste also...
One week before snapshot he states he will focus the last week to coordinate the upgrade off the exchanges...
And after snapshot he just confirms that bittrex (I suppose the same is true for others,bter(?)) was not individually informed and they should know about it because 1 month prior we made a buzz about this news...
If we had 50 exchanges that support us I could understand it, but we have only six (poloniex,btc38,bittrex,bter,yunbi,metaexhange)...
With this logic he shouldn't care informing any exchange prior snapshot...
PS I believe that exchanges in reality knew of course about the migration. But we gave them the opportunity to blame us for the luck of communication/migration... If bm had sent them only one fu#$% email before snapshot (2 minutes "work") they would not even have the chance to do it...
PS2 I agree with almost everything clout has said...
-
Just take a step back and look at the big picture. Bitshares 2.0 is a week old and needs someone to hold its hand and guide it while it grows. A baby needs to be nurtured and needs to trust it's parents in order to survive. Only as it grows older and more aware under the nurture of a higher authority does it realize it is time to start thinking and doing things for itself.
Bitshares is a baby now and Dan is the care taker. He knows the system better than anyone and I am happy to have him raise bitshares until we as a community become proficient with the system.
I'm saying the time is now that we become the care takers of this DAC. All we need is better coordination of the resources we have at our disposal. I'm not saying I don't want Dan to play a major role, I just want the community to step up and collectively play a larger role.
-
He's smart but not business savvy and definitely doesn't understand the difference between theory and practice.
what scares me the most is, if... he does
-
What a bunch of FUD'sters. Lol.
-
Given Dan and company's inability take care of the little things when they matter most (like coordinating the upgrade of exchanges) their total lack of business acumen
That leaved me a bad taste also...
One week before snapshot he states he will focus the last week to coordinate the upgrade off the exchanges...
And after snapshot he just confirms that bittrex (I suppose the same is true for others,bter(?)) was not individually informed and they should know about it because 1 month prior we made a buzz about this news...
If we had 50 exchanges that support us I could understand it, but we have only six (poloniex,btc38,bittrex,bter,yunbi,metaexhange)...
With this logic he shouldn't care informing any exchange prior snapshot...
PS I believe that exchanges in reality knew of course about the migration. But we gave them the opportunity to blame us for the luck of communication/migration... If bm had sent them only one fu#$% email before snapshot (2 minutes "work") they would not even have the chance to do it...
PS2 I agree with almost everything clout has said...
I think lack of business mind is the problem.
The team do not understand there are things very easy but create huge value. Making migration more easier, notify exchanges are things of this kind.
If the team consider more, we will spend less effort, and create more value. Think about why Dash and Dogecoin have a larger marketcap without the "innovation" like bitshares.
We lean on innovation too much, but do not understand to solve a problem we also need many "traditional" method. We lean on develop too much, but do not understand to solve a problem there are other steps to take. Or, we do not have real problem-solve mind too.
-
He's smart but not business savvy and definitely doesn't understand the difference between theory and practice.
what scares me the most is, if... he does
I don't think behaviour modelling and prediction is his (or nearly any developers) forte.
We are nearly there though, BTS 2.0 is an awesome and flexible system, who else could have created it for that little money and time besides BM & crew?
While some things can't be 'undone', now it's mainly a case of adjusting parameters based on real world observations and feedback.
-
The biggest problem with BitShares is ...
"I'm I rich yet?" :P
-
@jakub I did not equivocate one bit. I want Dan's power reduced. I want more decentralized governance, I want more transparency which would allow for more community involvement. What I have said throughout my post is that I trusted CNX to manage bitshares better. I know longer trust that they will make the right business decisions. We need to open up the management of this exchange to the community. We need to put together a checklist, prioritize each item and delegate task among community members. We need to establish trusted proxy voters. We must establish trusted committee members. We need to leverage the proposal system.
My point is that we shouldn't trust bytemaster to manage everything we should start making bitshares an actual company dividing up responsibilities in a transparent fashion, allowing for greater accountability.
My OP was a personal anecdote. But my message has far less to do with me, or BM than you suggest. This is a message to the community that we have to change things around. We have to turn this project into a company and we have to provide a better service than our competitors.
@clout, now I fully agree with this^.
I really appreciate you writing it after incurring a significant financial loss. It's easy for me to advise you to "take responsibility" while not being in your position myself.
As much as I admire BM's genius for making spectacular inventions, I never really relied on him in the business-running area. He makes mistakes as we all do but the problem (and the solution) lies not in him but in us having the will to take over from him, at least in areas we all know he's not really good at.
Conclusions like the one above give me a lot of faith in BitShares.
-
If you're not fully happy with the direction or governance decisions, then as I see this, you have two choices. First, follow Thom's advice and try to bring change through the existing system. Second, develop the exchange you want to see, either by developing your own alternative wallet or by forking this with a social consensus sharedrop. I'd rather have an economy of scale with one system, but if there are competing objectives, then at some point maybe it makes sense to try some different things. Let the market run its course and let natural selection decide what's most needed.
-
agree +5% but need to keep an eye on price as well and listen to the valuable suggestions from community to make a better exchange platform together
If you're not fully happy with the direction or governance decisions, then as I see this, you have two choices. First, follow Thom's advice and try to bring change through the existing system. Second, develop the exchange you want to see, either by developing your own alternative wallet or by forking this with a social consensus sharedrop. I'd rather have an economy of scale with one system, but if there are competing objectives, then at some point maybe it makes sense to try some different things. Let the market run its course and let natural selection decide what's most needed.