Although not explicitly stated, it is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who know what the acronym "DAC" stands for embrace some libertarian variant of anti-authoritarianism. We almost never see anti-authoritarian leftists in our midst. In this, we are missing out on an incredible opportunity.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/bitcoin-for-activists-what-you-need-to-know (http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/bitcoin-for-activists-what-you-need-to-know)
Only very rarely might one see a band of Rothbardians or Objectivists willing to stand up for their beliefs in front of a water canon in freezing weather, but hold an IMF or Bilderberg Group meeting, and leftist radicals will show up in large numbers in spite of tear gas, concussion grenades, and dogs.
That's the kind of dedication that we need!
Considering that Bitcoin is associated with money, per se, and leftists typically hold money in disdain, we might get some traction among them with BitShares.
For example, someone could use BTS ME to issue Protest Hours (XPH). The movement organizers could exchange XPH for anything else of value, including BTC, BTS, BitUSD, etc., that rally organizers could use to reward protesters who show up at a rally. After the rally, anyone in possession of a unit of XPH could use it to redeem from the movement organizers some fraction of what the rally organizers paid, or better yet use the XPH as a medium of exchange within the activist community.
If the shares circulated as an intra-community medium of exchange, a would-be radical just getting started would be able to look at the market prices of the different movements' shares and either join one with a high market cap or help out one of the underdogs.
Alternatively, the movement organizers could fund their activities with a Distributed Autonomous Charity.
Either way, rather than compete for attention among existing Bitcoin users, we could recruit within a largely untapped market that includes environmental, food, anti-exploitation and anti-human-trafficking, pro-choice, feminist, LGBT, and peace activists. While one might not agree with their agendas, decentralization does imply diversity of thought, and they do have the numbers on their side.
The left/right divide is a false divide...
The only divide that matters is freedom / slavery divide.
Commoners are not all alike. They have many profound differences in their governance systems, management practices and cultural values. And commons are not without their conflicts, struggles and failures. That said, most commoners tend to share fundamental commitments to participation, openness, inclusiveness, social equity, ecological respect, and human rights.
Envisioning the BitShares Ecosystem.
Actually I think one of the most important points of what bitshares is trying to do and is not emphasized, realized and sold nearly enough: Everyone is free to make their own version of a blockchain-solution with the tools and prototypes being developed here.
I think most assume the goal is to create either a pump-n-dump or another vendor-lock-in monopoly chain to rule them all scheme. Most people also focus on the "premine" aspect without realizing that PoS needs that exact stake(premine) to be present in order to function in the first place. To counterbalance that fear of premines, it should be communicated more clearly that the goal is to create toolkits and prototypes and that everyone is free to compete/collaborate and devise coin-distributions as they see fit. Bitshares should be clearly differentiated from the standard scam-coins, while off course even allowing scam-coins to be built as well if one so desires.
I don't think there is that much opposition to the idea of trying to setup sustainable ecosystems apart from people vested in threatened monopolies. If profitability is a scary word for many people and only appeals to greed how about using the term sustainability instead? Although I must admit I personally think greed(more than the other vices) is the most fundamental human trait making DACs sustainable.
Actually I think one of the most important points of what bitshares is trying to do and is not emphasized, realized and sold nearly enough: Everyone is free to make their own version of a blockchain-solution with the tools and prototypes being developed here.
I think most assume the goal is to create either a pump-n-dump or another vendor-lock-in monopoly chain to rule them all scheme. Most people also focus on the "premine" aspect without realizing that PoS needs that exact stake(premine) to be present in order to function in the first place. To counterbalance that fear of premines, it should be communicated more clearly that the goal is to create toolkits and prototypes and that everyone is free to compete/collaborate and devise coin-distributions as they see fit. Bitshares should be clearly differentiated from the standard scam-coins, while off course even allowing scam-coins to be built as well if one so desires.
I don't think there is that much opposition to the idea of trying to setup sustainable ecosystems apart from people vested in threatened monopolies. If profitability is a scary word for many people and only appeals to greed how about using the term sustainability instead? Although I must admit I personally think greed(more than the other vices) is the most fundamental human trait making DACs sustainable.
If you know of any people on twitter who seem to be actively warning people of the scams out there, please let me know. We need to "recruit" them to help inform the general public.
On everything else you said, JoeyD...you are SPOT on imo. That is the philosophy I signed on for +5%
Wealthy people tend to call other people greedy when those other people are refusing to work for them and their businesses (because they're working for themselves, disruptive competition). If these people don't work at all then the wealthy call them lazy.Are those the only options? If so it depends on what you want, chances are lazy people live longer, where greedy people might suffer from stress related illnesses like say a bad heart.
So is it better to be greedy or lazy?
Wealthy people tend to call other people greedy when those other people are refusing to work for them and their businesses (because they're working for themselves, disruptive competition). If these people don't work at all then the wealthy call them lazy.Are those the only options? If so it depends on what you want, chances are lazy people live longer, where greedy people might suffer from stress related illnesses like say a bad heart.
So is it better to be greedy or lazy?
In that sense the live long and prosper quote might be a hidden curse instead of a blessing.