The one thing about CH I disagree with is the fundamental principles of why any blockchain project exists in the first place. If you fail to establish a solid set of principles on which to base your project it won't accomplish the goals that BM and most of us are here to address.
What I got out of that interview is CH looks at all crypto-currency projects like a business, nothing more. He and I3 parted ways b/c they differ on that. What attracts me to BitShares isn't the potential monetary gain I hope to make, but rather the hope that this tech brings to everyone to realize financial freedom which will arise from adhering to the virtuous principles Bytemaster reflects so well.
However, I do feel if CH could have deferred to the principles BM established and helped to refine / evolve BitShares development methodology to be less ad-hoc and more structured and organized, the BitShares project might not have spent so much time and effort on things like follow my vote which IMO don't deserve the near term focus it got over things like DNS.
If BItShares is lacking it would have to be in it's ability to focus and evaluate the cost / benefit of where to use it's resources to achieve goals. It is in the area of project planning and management.
This shortcoming is also reflected by the fact BitShares doesn't have a formal roadmap on where it's going now. When I first heard of BitShares almost a year ago in April, the vision I heard sounded like a well thought out path of BitShares technology evolution. Keehote and DNS were part of that vision, vote was not. Interestingly MPA was not discussed back then, or at least I didn't hear about it until much later. So that is an opportunity that popped up that BitShares has been able to capitalize on.
This may sound more critical than I feel. I give Stan & Dan great credit for the monumental task of implementing a comprehensive vision while being open to opportunities along the way and sticking to principles while doing it. Have they made mistakes? Of course, anyone would. Could their management be improved? Just like software or writing a book, there's always room for improvement, perfection is an impossible goal to achieve.
I'm sticking around b/c I couldn't believe more strongly in the foundational principles BitShares is based on. My trust in Stan / Dan to learn from their mistakes and get better at focusing the team on the important priorities: 1) principles 2) technology / innovation 3) consensus+community+shareholders input is still very high. Who else / what other project provide greater devotion to these things than BitShares? None IMO. I just hope the mistakes taper off and the marketcap tapers on!