BM, you have such brilliant ideas, I really like this MAS concept.
But at the same time your communication strategy is absolutely terrible.
It feels like there is a part of you that wants to sabotage the whole thing.
You could've easily introduced MAS without alienating so many people.
You could've said the same things but in a different way - without depreciating DEX in any way.
I have a lot of questions.. but as I see the MAS concept unfold, I get more and more interested. This post begins to dig into the practical issues and it's a great start. It's a natural alignment of incentives, and there's endless possibilities for gamification of mutual aid..
I'll start with the dumbest question: what does MUXER stand for?
http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2015/12/31/Mutual-Aid-Society/
It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying. Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst.
It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying. Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst.
This is where you under-promised:
The initial blog post made it sound like you are pivoting and abandoning DEX. Or telling us that DEX is complete so we need to move on.
People here have put their money and thousands of hours on this forum discussing DEX and its potential. CNX actively encouraged this by outlining the advantages of shared order-book, safety, transparency etc. And one blog post erases all of this. BM contrasts the potential of MAS with the potential of DEX. And this is a big mistake to do that.
It does not take a PR genius to be able to predict that this is going to be a tough sell and people are going to rebel against it. Not because the MAS idea is bad. But because the beloved DEX seems to be abandoned.
You should've put all emphasis on DEX being taken care of. Either by CNX itself or by creating an environment where some other company can take over. And this is the area where it even makes sense to over-promise, just to make it easier to swallow.
You are in a position to over-promise here because taking good care of DEX is within your ability.
This is where you over-promised:
As usual, even before MAS was announced, BM mentioned about its potential to increase the value of LTM ten times or something along these lines. The thing is, nobody knows that. This is pure speculation. The concept of MAS should have been presented in a neutral way, without any speculation about its potential. It works much better when people, after reading a description, discover this potential themselves, make up their minds on their own. This way they feel they discovered this, it originates as an internal thought, not external assumption, especially when it's made by people who have over-promised in the past.
You should not make any promises here because MAS becoming huge is not within your control.
It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying. Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst.
This is where you under-promised:
The initial blog post made it sound like you are pivoting and abandoning DEX. Or telling us that DEX is complete so we need to move on.
People here have put their money and thousands of hours on this forum discussing DEX and its potential. CNX actively encouraged this by outlining the advantages of shared order-book, safety, transparency etc. And one blog post erases all of this. BM contrasts the potential of MAS with the potential of DEX. And this is a big mistake to do that.
It does not take a PR genius to be able to predict that this is going to be a tough sell and people are going to rebel against it. Not because the MAS idea is bad. But because the beloved DEX seems to be abandoned.
You should've put all emphasis on DEX being taken care of. Either by CNX itself or by creating an environment where some other company can take over. And this is the area where it even makes sense to over-promise, just to make it easier to swallow.
You are in a position to over-promise here because taking good care of DEX is within your ability.
This is where you over-promised:
As usual, even before MAS was announced, BM mentioned about its potential to increase the value of LTM ten times or something along these lines. The thing is, nobody knows that. This is pure speculation. The concept of MAS should have been presented in a neutral way, without any speculation about its potential. It works much better when people, after reading a description, discover this potential themselves, make up their minds on their own. This way they feel they discovered this, it originates as an internal thought, not external assumption, especially when it's made by people who have over-promised in the past.
You should not make any promises here because MAS becoming huge is not within your control.
I agree we always need to make reassurances (if we were any good at anticipating how we might be misunderstood).
But there is no intent to make any promises here. Dan was simply stating that he is looking for ten-baggers when he chooses what to do with his time and money. He decided to investigate the potential of MAS as the best ten-bagger he has identified.
And current threads are full of my attempts to show how pursuing lucrative assets and applications is the best way we know to drive traffic to the DEX.
A thriving DEX is assumed to underly everything new we consider.
So I would like someone to explain how they see MAS as more useful/profitable. I honestly don't see the potential here.
Take a random sample of 1000 people. Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas.
Take a random sample of 1000 people. Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas.
Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives.
Prediction markets could be big.
Take a random sample of 1000 people. Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas.
Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives.
Prediction markets could be big.
You could sell MAS better, however, how long do you think it would take to do one vs another? MAS seems to be based on a society concept which honestly seems very far fetched atm. It could be done, yes, but the amount of time wouldn't be worth it. This simply because atm we only seem to have CNX to work on stuff.
So would you rather wait for them to develop MAS and not doing anything else and wait for X years or have stuff that can be delivered first and easier like DEX, first and help that bootstrap MAS in the future?
You need to take time into consideration which no one seems to care about. You think competition will just sit around for a couple of years while you build and wait for MAS to work? By then you've already been surpassed. It's a new "market" you say, but so what, if we can have other stuff done first and get shareholders confidence back by delivering something useful and profitable first, why doing something as risky as that, waste precious amount of time? It can be done, imo just not now or we could fall behind. We have something half done (DEX) are we going to forget about that?
That way we will loose the time we spent on building the initial first half of the DEX and the time building MAS which may or not work. If DEX is half finished and can have real utility for users (or so I believe), pausing that to purchase something else that risky is not worth it atm. At least let's finish what it was started first so we can have better conditions to accommodate people while we work on MAS on the future. That way while MAS is being built we might already have a bigger ecosystem and better structure to support it, thus giving MAS itself more chances of succeeding. That's the rational path imo. But in the end it's always up to the voting results of working proposals so...
Take a random sample of 1000 people. Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas.
Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives.
Prediction markets could be big.
You could sell MAS better, however, how long do you think it would take to do one vs another? MAS seems to be based on a society concept which honestly seems very far fetched atm. It could be done, yes, but the amount of time wouldn't be worth it. This simply because atm we only seem to have CNX to work on stuff.
So would you rather wait for them to develop MAS and not doing anything else and wait for X years or have stuff that can be delivered first and easier like DEX, first and help that bootstrap MAS in the future?
You need to take time into consideration which no one seems to care about. You think competition will just sit around for a couple of years while you build and wait for MAS to work? By then you've already been surpassed. It's a new "market" you say, but so what, if we can have other stuff done first and get shareholders confidence back by delivering something useful and profitable first, why doing something as risky as that, waste precious amount of time? It can be done, imo just not now or we could fall behind. We have something half done (DEX) are we going to forget about that?
That way we will loose the time we spent on building the initial first half of the DEX and the time building MAS which may or not work. If DEX is half finished and can have real utility for users (or so I believe), pausing that to purchase something else that risky is not worth it atm. At least let's finish what it was started first so we can have better conditions to accommodate people while we work on MAS on the future. That way while MAS is being built we might already have a bigger ecosystem and better structure to support it, thus giving MAS itself more chances of succeeding. That's the rational path imo. But in the end it's always up to the voting results of working proposals so...