Honestly this seems like a normal market reaction to a too-concentrated launch on a product that most people do not understand.  People are feeling like they made a bad decision, but it's just those folks who didn't really understand what they were buying in the first place and just wanted to not miss out.

Alternatively, if you were holding MSC since august as many of the big buyers surely were, selling below the .2BTC +40% rate given during the crowdsale is very much not at a loss.  Their cost basis on the MSC was .01BTC when BTC was worth under $200, and then they really didnt have a choice but to sit since MSC hasn't even been sendable without major risk much less included on an exchange.

I anticipate the price will come back up to around the crowdsale rate fairly soon once the folks who are scared divest themselves and the price will go up as maidsafe develops their product in public over the next few months leading up to launch.   If they don't deliver on the platform, the tokens will be worthless.

After mtGox, NeoBee and bitcoin marketprice taking a dump I've run out of investment money I can spend without blinking quite a while ago, actually I've long since run out of funds to invest with loads of blinking as well,

How much did you give to Invictus in the form of Angelshares?  Would you have liked Invictus to have invested any of those funds in this?

Public Notice

Keyhotee Founder IDs will have an expanded role in the genesis block of many Bitshares DACs.

You should register your Keyhotee Founder ID's by the end of April to gain maximum advantage from them.

After that we can't guarantee that the next genesis block to be initialized will include them.

 

The expanded role will be explained soon,
just wanted to alert you to the need to finish registering using the new version of Keyhotee.

You're really only giving five days notice?

Is this going to be shared anywhere besides pages deep in an update thread on a forum?

How many founders do you anticipate losing?

What reason do they have to accept the cost of not offering the cheapest they are able directly in btc? To prop up safecoin? What will they do against people who accept btc at those prices?

I want someone to break down why two parties will consistently choose to trade their preffered money into and out of safecoin before performing their exchange. The only way for this to happen is if the DAC doesn't work unless you do, and you can only get people to accept that cost is for the value add from the DAC (not from the other party in the exchange!!) is greater than that cost.

Maidsafe is facilitating transactions for free (at cost even??) and then promoting a maidsafe-brand cryptocurrency on the side.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Because it's the token of the network, and acceptance gives it value.  Everybody running on the safecoin network will have safecoin, so everyone is vested in its success.  Nobody says it has to be the only token, but being the native token and all participants being vested through non-monetary means means you have an enormous community just like doge except there is actual value here.

You guys are seeing this as a negative, but to my eyes it is a positive - people who want a lot buy it, people who want a little farm it.  The market will value it.  More options is better unless they step on each other.

Also you keep calling Bitcoin inflationary but it's only technically inflationary, in practice is is and always has been deflationary because demand far outstripes increases in supply.   I would argue you can look at CoinmarketCap and find many tokens who have deflationary fundamentals but because of failure to penetrate the mindshare and achieve critical mass they are inflationary in practice since demand falls away but supply remains.  Ripple is an excellent example of this.

seriously, launch something before you take the time to gloat about other peoples success.  Will we in fact see a release next week?  I want to believe but have really no faith left after every single self imposed deadline has been blown with very little commentary.  We like talking about other peoples failures and our successes, but it would be great if there were some personal successes to talk about that don't conclude with "And that was promising"

So while mining has been proven for bitcoin style transactions it has not been proven for markets.


It would have been great to see it in practice given that was the opportunity and plan.

sigh. 

I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable.  They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.

Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means.  That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer.  Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.

That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten.   As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism.  A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.

When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.

It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens.   I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS.   They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.

This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.   My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.   When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.   That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.

Looking at the players on the field, I don't think Bitshares is even making a play for technological dominance.    They're focused on profitable businesses, but the irony is they're building the platform and shouldn't be concerned about profitable businesses.  People will build profitable businesses on top of what Invictus builds, which is why attracting an early entrepreneurial community was supposed to be really important.

the problem is you are arguing from belief, I can't help you with that because I'm arguing from what I see and the picture is bigger than Invictus.   How can I argue with your faith?  I can't, and even if I could you're not the person I wish I could influence.