1141
General Discussion / Re: Should we kill the DACronym?
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:43:54 am »I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.
I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.
It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.
Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators. They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money. If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.
I am glad we are getting clearer of the risks that we are facing. The regulators no doubt will go after the leaders of crypto-firms which they see as breaking the laws. Bitshare would be in trouble too if its leaders get into trouble. If we can do something about it now, we should do it without delay.