My current conclusion
Our dev team plus Stan, even collectively lack the ability to discern within a market acceptable degree of accuracy the likely response of the market to their actions.
Why? Developers seem to be very literal. They appear to be genuinely confused & frustrated even as a collective, why the market would respond negatively to some of their decisions.
The title of Toast's thread and even BM's last post in the same thread highlight it best. (They actually think it has something to do with DVS.) They also think it is shareholders fault for reacting that way, not an entirely predictable response of a market.
It's also possible Stan doesn't intend to be so condescending, patronising and evasive in most of his posts either.
Everyone thinks you are all rock stars we want you to be appreciated and respected as such. We want you to change the world for the better, be rich and famous and make us wealthy in the process. I doubt most want to overly influence what you work on or what you do. What you have though is a dev brick wall atm. Even when you think you've taken input, it gets filtered through the literal wall and we end up with decisions the create completely unessecary PR problems for the umpteenth time. The result is frustration and confusion from the markst because we can't understand how a group of exceptionally intelligent people can make such unnecessary unpopular, divisive and BTS value damaging decisions.
It's perfectly obvious that the DVS thing of going post 11/05 would be interpreted badly especially by the Chinese market after the merger & is not worth the blowback.
But I will try to understand that I'm dealing with a group of people that don't intend to make such negative PR decisions that look antagonistic towards their own shareholders. They are genuinely even as a collective just very literal people who are unable to pre-emptively discern how their actions will be received and the wider implications of them on the market
I certainly recognize that I did blame others for their response and that in general I have no one to blame but myself. I appreciate that you recognize our INTENT is do do well by all and that we cannot possibly know others expect.
One thing I have learned is that changing anything is bad and I am loath to do it even if the original decision was a mistake.
I would much rather not be the one to make decisions because it is easy to critique but difficult to decide. I also don't want to let the squeaky wheel rule the day just because they complain the loudest. So it is a real challenge to determine where the AGGREGATE PUBLIC OPINION falls.
If changing to a 100% BTS allocation would make everyone happy it would be a no brainer. I am not in this to pick favorites.
So is there any objection to a 100% BTS allocation, if so please speak up now.
I am actually thinking about allocating 10% to nullstreet leaders and 10% to Chinese community leaders and 10% to core developers and 10% AGS 10% PTS and 50% to BTS. This way the key players all have something to work with.
My only fear in changing anything is that it will just result in a DIFFERENT PR mess. Can you all prove to me that the PR would be better by changing it now than by letting it ride?
My prediction is that if we were to exclude AGS / PTS all together that many people will create just as much negative PR.
I agree with the market not liking changes.
My prediction is that a 100% drop to BTS is optimal.
I would look in particular to hear what CN-members has to say. China is the biggest market and his interpretation of the situation is probably one of the best guages of overall market opinion to how BTS as a market will respond to decisions imo.
Reporting from China , the temperature here is 8 centigrade , it's raining . Iphone 6 is very hot in the market right now .......
Ok , enough with chit chat.....
1. Some people are upset about not honoring the 11.05 snapshot .
2. Many people invested in PTS and BTS in the first place because I3 had a long term plan and company structure that offers extra sense of stability . That's something Peercoin or NXT could not offer . The October merger changed that , many have left , and those who stayed , are afraid of more changes . They're not concerned about the devshares itself , but concerned about any future changes that might lead to another October break down .
3. This may not be a big deal after all . But it would affect opinions on that sense of stability .
4. This is not really about right and wrong , who gets what . They view BTS as a serious investment , so it should have a serious business plan and not change it at will . Because learning BTS is already to hard and consumes too much brain power , if added extra concerns then it's more harder to attract serious investors .
5. Change it , don't change it , what would be the outcome , there's no exact equation for that .
6. They could have accept the changed plan if BM asked nicely upfront and stress that Devshares will only have small value and will serve as a testing tool for BTS only . But instead , BM stressed the investment nature of Devshares .
7. Those who are not talking are not necessary agree with the plan , some of them are too disappointed to even argue . Those who argued , may not care about this for themselves at all .
8. Most reaction : what changed again
!!! Holy cow .....
That how scared some of the people are right now .....
9. Anyone here can win over any single argument . But investors can only do two things : Buy and Sell . How to let them want to buy more instead of selling more ? I think that's the real question we want to ask ourselves . Arguments are just for forum members , investors argue with their money .
10. Holy cow , it's 2:42 AM .