Can someone on your team who isn't you take the time to respond to the article explaining why he's wrong?
I'm sure my understanding as well as his would benefit from a meaningful and point by point response to this article.
I'm not on Bytemaster's team and I certainly would not consider myself even remotely qualified enough to speak on their behalf but here's my own point by point breakdown and thoughts on why the article is FUD:
1. This is wrong because funding for the Bitshares ecosystem came from donations (AGS) and PTS not from BTSX.
2. This is ridiculous. Since when is it frowned upon to encourage communities to write articles about upcoming projects or discuss emerging technologies? Why is it bad to have a nice website? And why does he think being ignorant ("technobabble") about new technologies is cool?
3. He plainly states "'decentralized companies' aren't actually companies" so he already has his mind made up that DACs and DAOs aren't real. Again, plain ignorance and unsubstantiated.
4. This is wrong because his example is not analogous with how BitsharesX works. First, he says that it's 'sort of like buying a mortgage that's secured on itself instead of a house'. That's not analogous because such an example uses dollars to buy debt secured by debt instead of an asset. BitsharesX would be closer to converting your bank stock equity to USD and depositing that USD at a the same bank.
5. He says a lot of nothing then he only looks at one side of the trade as he states, "Anyone bringing a BitAsset into existence will be betting that BTSX will rise vis a vis the price of that associated asset." False. Further, he states "Most significantly, anyone who wants to bet against BTSX against a BitAsset (though it might make more sense to just short it against Bitcoin on, e.g., a third party exchange) cannot do so without buying BTSX and posting BTSX as collateral first." This is also not completely accurate because bitAssets could be acquired outside of the exchange and traded against each other. Even if that weren't true (correct me if I'm wrong there), I fail to see the difference between how BTSX works versus a centralized bank or exchange. You have to first have USD to short a stock and when you sell you have to convert back to dollars. Trading on Gox you'd have GoxUSD that's only backed by Gox.
6. He's correct regarding increased exposure to BTSX during price declines; however, his other statements are unsubstantiated as he hasn't seen any of the fundamentals or algos for the prediction market and does not know to what extent the system is able to cover. Also, his entire example with GM is inaccurate as he's treating it as a traditional derivative with both sides posting collateralized debt obligations and the like. Futhermore, his scenario ends with a value destruction which doesn't occur in BitsharesX..BTSX just trades the risks. So yes, increased exposure to the underlying is a risk but as an stockholder that just means your equity holdings increase. So the risk would equate to holding more BTC in a falling BTC environment if you held a bitAsset... oh no!
7. He phrases his argument as if purchasers of bitAssets are being deceived by what they represent which is also unsubstantiated. "No word on what happens if the price of BitShares collapses completely, such that every BitAsset is chronically under-collateralised." Right there he's of the impression that Bitshares (and likely all cryptos) have a natural real world value of zero. A ridiculous statement given the success of Bitcoin and the top 300 cryptos with a non-zero balance. He also is ignorant of the market mechanics regarding Bitshares insurance for shorts undercollateralized and doesn't address that in a selloff there'd be an increase in dividends (or burn) that would also help alleviate the downward pressure.
8. He's not even making a new argument here; he's still trying to milk the argument of undercollateralized loans. Not only that but it sounds like he's confused regarding who actually owns a bitAsset since holders of bitAssets are long positions. Additionally, he's also forgetting that bitAssets can trade against each other and the only downside being increased exposure to BTSX. Again, this is no different than being in a falling USD environment and having increased exposure to USD and bitching about how the value of your bonds is being effected.
9. "?"
10. ?
11. "this is a month-old cryptocurrency that makes money by issuing redeemable asset-backed promissory notes". The system makes money from transaction fees alone. He's wrong yet again because bitAssets are long positions. So what his argument really boils down to is that a black swan event or extreme downward movement in BTSX will make holders of bitAssets have greater exposure to BTSX so the system is doomed to implode on itself... as if that possibility doesn't exist in every monetary system ever created. He makes a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions lacking proper understanding of the system or market behavior but still remains proud of his ignorance. Splendid.