A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated. But let's look at things logically. For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed. I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work. And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares. If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great. If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes. Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders. This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs. But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic. I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.
This was well weighted.
AGS donators and indirectly PTS holders have funded the developement of what Bitshares is today respectively what it will be when 2.0 is implemented. Graphene may have been developed while AGS funds had already run out but without the experience (mistakes, testing in real markets, lots of contemplation) that resulted from the development work when the dev team was paid through AGS donations we wouldn't be were we are today.
Like always with AGS/PTS and BTS nothing is legally binding as the donations were no strings attached but such a "soft justice discussion" makes sense in the spirit of the no strings attached fundraiser.
Another argument, PC pointed out above, is that new code that is funded by the Bitshares DAC would be "owned" by cryptonomex instead of who is funding it. Or did I get this wrong?
To determine who should own the graphene code (of copyright restrictions are not debated), the logical answer would be: Whoever put in the "capital" (that is money as well as intellectual capital). Maybe graphene was founded for one year through AGS and for half a year through private efforts. Plus founders have contributed intellectual capital.
I just want to point out that this
If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer. It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.
seems like a contradiction to prior statements that Cryptonomex will not work on chains that would compete with Bitshares.
Interests could be aligned through sharedropping on AGS/PTS holders which again would be an interesting legal case
This is also true!
Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.
Sent from my Timex Sinclair
No simple answers here. Let's keep up the open and honest discussion.