Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No offense but the title of this thread sounds preachy, and BM is busy coding without having to read books. He doesnt do the marketing anyway.
Bytemaster has other duties besides coding; he is effectively the CEO of the Bitshares DAC. It seems to me this book is exactly where his "heads at" right now. My intention wasn't to be preachy.
Reading trhrough Amazon reviews looks like a must read for anyone who is to be taken seriously while discussing marketing on this forum!
...BTC is struggling with mass adoption because the vast majority of humans can only cope with tech evolution to revolution...
It really is one of the best marketing books out there, when it comes to big picture strategy any disruptive startup should employ.
For anyone who is interested in a brief overview, check out this article.
Download the pdf here.
I think we are in the best possible position we could be in. The market is in a downturn, once we begin to hire all the developers of the industry we will gain everyones attention. I think the entire crypto market could go to us in less than 3 months if we are aggressive enough at hiring.
Don't we need to have some success first, in order to afford all those developers? I think we will and we will, but I'd put the sequence in that order. But either way, it ends up to the same lunar progression.
We've essentially got 60 million USD in venture capital. The market cap can be invested to generate a return through the delegate system. We have more than enough to pay for the employment of almost every developer, for a year (pulling these numbers out of our ass). What do you think would happen to our market cap if we have the majority of developers working for us, for just a month? Don't you think all other coins will see it a bearish signal when their developers start getting headhunted?
maybe yes... but our goal shouldn't to fight against other crytpos! Just my 2 BTS
We now have a situation where other developers can honor AGS and PTS while Bytemaster will have met his commitments once and for all with his signature SuperDAC.
It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS. Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation. There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed. PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work. And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone. It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.
Edit: It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.
...
On practicalities of the client software itself:
My one initial worry was that a BitShares FrankenDAC from a usability point of view would be ugly and confusing - vote , exchange, music and eventually much more all under one GUI roof. The mall metaphor that Stan initially made, though generally pretty sound, made me think of this from a usability point of view. I hate malls - too busy and too much fighting for my attention.
But actually the mall metaphor from Stan is perhaps more meta than my initial basic interpretation of it. I prefer Universal DAC because it fits better with my more recent insight. The new Universal DAC is a bit like a mall, but that doesn't mean that all the shops have to be on the same street. The GUIs to all the different components of Bitshares do not have to be contained within one downloadable client.
With this insight it seems clear to me that there is a necessity for splitting up the various BTS products into separate GUI silos or apps. They will obviously need to have the BTS brand in common. A bit like how you have a separate Google Maps, Gmail and Google Cardboard app on your mobile phone today. All brought to you by Google, but each product with a separate focused app that you can choose to download or not. Each app has it's own team of engineers too. So the way you access the features and products, all sitting on the same BTS blockchain, may differ depending on the BTS product or feature you are interested in making use of. You most likely buy things with BitUSD or BitEUR within these apps. For some products it might be via specialized downloadable clients/wallet for your pc, for others a a browser-only based interface, others still will be touch/mobile apps. Perhaps some products will eventually have all three or more. Personally I'm looking forward to features and products that require a VR based interface. What is the short term plan here? I've not seen the practicalities of how it will all work together discussed or spelled out. Will Vote/DNS and, perhaps Music if they come on board, all be initally contained in one client or will we have separate ones? I hope to god it's the latter otherwise it's going to get messy fast.
Think of the BitShares blockchain as a database that can have any number of separate APIs windowing into it.
Even a debit card is ultimately a simple API that works through existing infrastructure to access this database.
A voting booth metaphor and an e-trade app and ordinary wallets of various snazzy custom designs represent other examples.
You don't have to expose all the DACs functions in every API. That's why I used the mall metaphor. There can be many storefronts unique to each business. They just all share a DAC-OS of common services listed in my OP on the BitShares Platform. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10293.msg135034#msg135034
Then when smart contracts arrive, you can do high-frequency deals between every company in the Mall (aka Business District).
Everyone understands the merits of businesses co-locating in a mall or business district. Nobody calls such network effect enhancing conveniences a FrankenMall.
After this episode I'm sure there is a lot of internal talk about what should/shouldn't be posted on the public forum. It seems this was retroactively decided to be something that shouldn't be shared; at least not as written.
.I assume it was removed due to potential unexpected fallout...probably good idea IMHO.What is done is done.
What sense does it make to have a RC if you won't give people the time to install and report bugs?
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/issues/864
Essentially you would replace the capital infusion with captial diffusion? WHoever wants to invest in ideas can do so to try to gain more than by just holding? Similar to how our economy works today? Brilliant. I like it. With Turing completeness I hope something like this can be done without any manual intervention of funds.
Wouldn't this type of strategy replace what that current proposal is because of the burning BTS part?
As I said, it's not exactly a replacement. I think they're complimentary. Inflation can be used for high-cost lower-risk initiatives that have a high degree of concensus among shareholders, while DacShares can be used for higher-risk, lower-cost, and low consensus Dac add-ons. Some examples:
Viral marketing campaign: Inflation
Associated Press Dac: DacShares
Purchasing a Credit Union: Inflation
Atomic Cross-chain trading: DacShares
The key advantage inflation has, is that you can sell new shares immediately on the market. With DacShares, you will have a much more shallow market for your DacAsset until there is increased demand (if that ever happens).
Another thing to note that successful DacAssets ultimately can lead to inflation as part of the Dac Merger process. However, I am guessing that many DacAssets will not rise above their issuance price, and either will not be merged back into BTS, or will be merged back at a discount.
