Faith in Bitshares is feigning. That is proven by the value of the BTS token, the lessening involvement/enthusiasm of the community on these forums, Bytemaster moving on to other projects, and the overall cryptocurrency community's attitude about Bitshares.
It is time for BTS 3.0 - This is my plan to save Bitshares.
1. One of the biggest gripes about Bitshares is that consensus is obtained through dPoS. I suggest lessening Bitshares' reliance on DPoS. I am not suggesting we abandon dPoS entirely, but instead reduce its power by adding an auxiliary PoW component to the consensus algorithm. In other words, both the delegates and PoW miners will have a chance to find the next block. The PoW miners will have a 60% chance to fine the next block, and the delegates will have a 40% chance to find the next block. The percentages are arbitrary, as long as PoW is valued above the chances of the delegates to find the next block. This way, even if someone were able to commit a 51% attack on the dPoS chain, then Bitshares chain would still be secured via PoW.
1a. The logic behind the overall cryptocurrency community's dislike of dPoS is that a 51% attack can be prolonged indefinitely for very cheap once the attacker obtains 51% of the network. However, a 51% on a PoW chain requires a lot of money (electricity) to sustain an attack indefinitely. By implementing #1, IMO, a lot of people in the cryptocurrency community would reconsider Bitshares, because a lot of them immediately write it off simply because it is dPoS/PoS-based.
2. Liquidity needs to be bolstered on the DEX. There are three proposals, of which the community has to choose from. If the liquidity problem is not solved, then I posit Bitshares will never succeed. It is considered in this community as a "chicken and egg" problem, but it is not, and there are things we can do about it! After a lot of thought, I have reversed course over my opinion about TonyK's proposal, so I suggest that we adopt a combination of TonyK's proposal, a variation of Bytemaster's proposal (but more along the way it was tweaked towards the end of the thread), and ZERO trading fees for an indefinite amount of time.. Their proposals are less economically risky, and more straightforward than mine is. Before another cryptocurrency comes along and eats our lunch, we need to get serious about bolstering liquidity.
2a. TonyK's Proposal -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21409.0.html2b. Bytemaster's Proposal -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html2c. My Proposal -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=276084;topic=21197.452d. No trading fees for an indefinite amount of time. Once a sufficient amount of volume on the DEX is obtained, then the shareholders can revisit trading fees via voting.
3. The Bitshares' community's enthusiasm needs to be bolstered, and money needs to be raised for development. I suggest doing this in two ways:
3a. Creating a road map for future development (IE, We will implement parts 1, 2a, 2b, and 2d of this proposal). This will give them a renewed enthusiasm for the project.
3b. Increasing the value of the BTS token.
3c. Bitshares 3.0 will be a fork of Bitshares Graphene, and it will be distributed evenly:
3c1. 40% By taking a snapshot of BTS chain. Reasoning: snapshots increase the value of the BTS token.
3c2. 60% By doing an IPO. Reasoning: This is the time of the IPOs... projects are raising millions of dollars (DAO, etc). We can raise a lot of money for development, and bring in new skin/investors to the game that will be vested in Bitshares' success.
3c3. The reasoning for weighting the IPO more than the snapshot: At the same time as accomplishing the main goals (raising money for development, and restoring the Bitshares community's enthusiasm via a higher price per share), we can reduce one of the other biggest gripes about Bitshares by reducing the Larimer's/insiders stake in Bitshares. Let's stop beating around the bush. The Larimer's have done a great service to the community for their participation, hard work, and ideas, but at some point we need to come to the realization that a lot of people don't like how they have handled a lot of issues throughout Bitshares' history, and their large voting power influence. Since only 40% of Bitshares 3.0 will be created by BTS snap shot, then they would need to pay money to sustain their voting power (which in turn goes directly towards development of BTS 3.0, so shareholders win either way.) This will bolster enthusiasm/acceptance both inside our community and outside our community, as there those that feel this way in both.
3c4. Alternatively, we could 100% snapshot BTS, but then we would need to figure out a way to pay for development. For example, the NXT 2.0 (Ardor) idea has really increased Nxt value:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/4. Some are not be able to get past Smartcoins. They will not trust them, think they will fail, and fail to see the benefits compared to holding the real assets themselves (not bitBTC, or open.BTC, but actual BTC). We should cater to these individuals. If SuperNext and B&C Exchange can solve this problem, and incorporate real assets into a DEX, then so can Bitshares. Actual token trading should be incorporated into Bitshares 3.0, and we should let the market decide which is more important- actual token trading or smartcoins.
4a. Implementing this feature protects Bitshares against possible competitors by implementing Bitshares' competitor's main features, while maintaining Bitshare's original features (leveraged trading). There is literally nothing to lose.