Quote from: alphaBar on October 20, 2014, 03:59:36 pm

3) AGS received a much larger allocation of DACs per dollar invested precisely because they are "locked" into the Bitshares ecosystem. Making them liquid after the fact is unfair. It essentially gives AGS holders all of the benefits of PTS without any of the downside. Here is the "company" analogy we like to use so much: The Bitshares Corporation gives investors a choice between buying one of two corporate bonds, A and B. Bond A is perpetual and bond B is convertible. For this reason, A has a much higher yield than B. After the bonds are issued, the company turns around and says "just kidding," A is now also a convertible bond, though it keeps the higher yield. Just something to think about.

I propose another analogy. AGS/PTS still exist and the social contract is in place. I3 decides they want to create a super-DAC (lets call it BTSO for BitShares Other) that will include all future ideas that they were planning on crediting AGS/PTS with. They could give 10% to AGS and 10% to PTS, but instead they decide to be generous and give 50% to AGS and 50% to PTS (just like BTSX). Remember, the social contract said any fork in the same industry must snapshot off the blockchain in that industry. Forks of BitShares X to include interest were planned to fork off BTSX not AGS/PTS. Similarly, future spin-offs of the industries in BitShares Other credit BTSO not AGS/PTS. Because of this and because I3 would have decided BTSO will be for ALL future ideas they come up with, it means AGS and PTS would then likely be worthless. They still exist, but no would bother mining or trading PTS anymore.

So then, BTSX, BTSO, DNS, VOTE, and NOTE exist (AGS/PTS also exist but are worthless so we can ignore them). The social consensus at that point is that industries in a bank and exchange snapshot off BTSX; industries in domain names snapshot off DNS, industries in music snapshot off NOTE; industries in voting snapshot off VOTE; and, industries in everything else snapshot off BTSO. These are all separate DACs that will be at worse directly competing with each other or at best spreading the focus and energy of I3 too thin. It is completely fair game for any one of these DACs to out-compete the others and kill them all off. Those decisions on the future direction of the DACs are no longer in the hands of I3 but rather the shareholders of each DAC. The proposal is that we now want to consolidate some of these industries together because it is less confusing for investors and we are stronger together than when competing with each other. What is the fairest way of doing this? I don't know. In some sense it doesn't really matter. What matters is what is the best way of doing it which gives the resulting super-DAC the best chance for survival, because that is all that matters in the ruthless business world. In my opinion, bytemaster's proposal seemed pretty fair to all parties, and more importantly it seemed like a proposal that would lead to the most unification possible in our community and the least amount of pissed-off people who dump their stake in anger. Maybe there is a better merger strategy that more of us will agree to (we will never be able to please everyone). What I am confident about is that we have a much better chance of surviving against outside competitors, who will eventually come to their senses and decide to clone the BitShares toolkit, if we unite together into one DAC, at least in these early growth stages.

if the marketing boost for bitshares begins and the unclaimed stakes for DNS are still remaining on these levels, prepare to meet our friends from outer-space....

Quote from: Gonzo on October 14, 2014, 10:38:34 am

Like luckybit said, in order to get into eBay we just need to create demand. 

Think viral:

Begin to checkout, put an item in the cart, get stuck, request help from merchant, ask merchant if he accepts BitUSD, tell him you want to pay in BitUSD and it's cheaper for both of you, show him an on-ramp link, tell him you'll buy when he can accept it, rinse, repeat.  There's a lot more potential for this on eBay than anywhere else


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are describing is an example of something that isn't real demand.

If people here really are naive enough to think that kickstarting adoption is is just a matter of "thinking big", then the target market should be taobao rather than eBay. BitUSD actually has a decent USP for international trade, AND the bitshares community is really big in China.

But in the end a decentralized solution loses most of its advantage when marketed to a centralized marketplace where everyone have to be in compliance anyway.