Your vision, the persistence and endurance with which this vision is articulated without getting upset or even aggressive at any point, no effort whatsoever to manipulate people and the "market realism"[1] you emphasized from the beginning have attracted me to Bitshares! And your blog is a clearly articulated and extremely convincing expression of that vision. These qualities are indicators of great trustworthiness. Also this is meant to be constructive feedback and in no way does it imply how things "should" be. It is just my perspective on the world (in this case applied to PR matters).
I think that expressions like "You can help by lending our community your money", "Would you be willing to skip a couple of meals to help create a better world?" or "...while making everyone in the community a ton of money." may hinder certain people from seriously looking into Bitshares (the money making potential and the philosophy) and associating with Bitshares given the context (altcoin scams) under which outsiders/uninformed people mostly interpret what they read. Why? Because people are attracted to those that give and not take (their money). In addition there is a social norm that goes about like this: "people (and equally companies) can't be trusted that make (too) broad claims that are too good to be true. On the contrary we trust those that are humble, over deliver and under promise". The older we get the more do we have that norm internalized because we got burned from under delivering people around us or (equally strong) get this norm hammered into our subconsciousness by those we trust.
Now the quoted statements from the blog don't scare anyone within this community because 1) we know for example that "you can help by lending our community your money" refers to the mechanics of BitUSD. And 2) we know that you have over delivered in many ways and that you are a trustworthy individual with the intention to advance other people's lives. But that knowledge and context is not available to an outsider and so the interpretation is different.
Someone not familiar with BitShares and a libertarian way of thinking in general might think of BitShares as some world government when reading "dispute resolution and law enforcement will be managed by the BitShares community" (see
http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2014/12/18/What-is-BitShares/). Consider that an outsider might only understand 50% of this article that also only partly provides a context necessary to interpret this statement.
An example for my above thesis is the Preston Byrne controversy from last August. Here is how I interpret it: Byrne saw a few things: Broad claims in terms of what the system (bitassets) is capable of and how much money it can make for bts holders, a system he though might (he didn't know for sure and didn't look into to very deeply in the beginning) not succeed (no price feed at that time; other more broad claims than today). He acted to the disadvantage of bitshares in terms of public perception because of his social programming and maybe due to the more or less conscious rationale that he could profit from proactively "shunning" bitshares that had violated the following social norm: "those that focus on money primarily, are not humble and seem to over promise (assuming that bitshares is not an exception to the rule that most grand promises fail) should be shunned". Note please that this is only the impression an outsider easily gets if he doesn't understand the issue (bitassets) and does not know if there are honest people behind bitshares. He did this then by making unconstructive, and effective posts in terms of publicity that helped his reputation on a superficial level because he helped the rest of the (crypto) community to enforce the norm above and punish those that didn't follow it. It is reality that people stay at this superficial level of reputation as well as on a superficial level regarding the issue/content (bitasset mechanics) for one because the vast majority is guided by norms / a normative perspective [2], are not knowledgeable enough and do not have enough time to form an own perspective. Instead they rely on authorities (in this case P. Byrne) that are knowledgeable to some degree and follow certain norms that indicate trustworthiness or at least show the intent to follow norms that ensure that that person does nothing that would harm his reputation. Byrne himself was repelled from looking further into BitAsset mechanics and from making a constructive post because he didn't want to be associated with the "norm breakers" and at the same time (more or less consciously) saw (might not be true) a chance for some publicity and reputation enhancement for him among those that do not verify things rationally themselves.
A more deep / philosophical perspective: The perspective on money as something evil as well as the existence of moral judgement and the inability of people to form an own opinion based on their own logical and empirical view on the matter are partly properties of a non free society (in my own terms: fear / materialism driven society). The big question is whether it is advisable to violate the norms described above that indicate trustworthiness under the circumstances of today's society. I believe that two things are effective to change society towards less fear, more love, more freedom, less reward/punishment: Providing the tools that make oppressive structures obsolete or even force those structures "out of business" (the FED might no be "competitive" anymore...) and articulating a vision about society and bitshares that doesn't scare people and doesn't violate trust indicating norms. I think not violating the norms described above can be done completely without compromising the articulation of a vision for society by paying attention to the gap between insider and outsider perspectives (outsider here means: outsider to bitshares and libertarian philosophy).
This is meant to be constructive feedback. I believe that the most productive outcome will be reached by articulating the most diverse perspectives. Hope this comes across like this. It would be interesting how others perceive such subjective matters like trustworthiness indicating norms etc.
[1] Acknowledging the fact that every venture that wants to provide a service at scale has to meet market demands (to a certain degree at least) and is in most cases best structured as a for profit venture.
[2] Normative perspective means thinking in terms of how the world should be (example: bitcoin should be the only cc, otherwise no cc has any value) as opposed to acknowledging reality (competition because no state enforces a monopoly on one specific crypto money) and making the best out of it with respect to whatever their values are.