Honestly I don't even like talking about cryptos unless I figure someone to be more than a bit above average IQ.  It is too sci-fi for your average person to grok and on top of it most are biased towards trusting Fiat because it is all they've known.  Crypto will gain share through younger people who are more open and thought leaders.

I would like to offer another powerful analogy to consider. Fuzzy has often used a version of this analogy, and I believe it to be very eye opening:

Let's say bytemaster is attending a crypto-conference. Lets say this conference is in Australia. He gets up on the podium and addresses the crowd. He gives the official PR approved narrative.  Perhaps someone records this. Now lets say that he is roaming around the conference, having conversations and meeting people. At some point, a small crowd forms around him. Say 15 or 20 people, all curious, asking him questions, listening with rapt attention as he fills their mind with possibilities.

Perhaps no one records this. Perhaps the only ones that ever know what transpired in this brief moment are the ones who were fortunate enough to be there, at the right place, at the right time. Would you complain that these people have somehow trespassed on your supposed "right" to freely access every bit of information that is exchanged?

Whats more, there would be many barriers to entry to even attend this event. For example, someone living in the United States would have had to spend a few thousand on a plane ticket and hotel, and perhaps hundreds more on a conference pass.

With my proposal, the same type of private conference, which is perfectly acceptable in the situation I mentioned above, would be available with FAR fewer barriers to entry. In essence, the greatest barrier is that someone living in a certain part of the world might have to stay up past their bedtime to join or listen in. While this may be personally inconvenient for some, it is not a sound argument against allowing others to benefit from it. In fact, as our hypothetical conference was happening in Australia, it was nighttime in the USA!

I've never followed the conference model.  The mumble hangout has always been primarily based around Dan talking about Bitshares and giving updates.  It was probably one of the only places a fanboy could be a fan, listening to that show. 

I tend to agree with Julian about this.  It is a bit comical but it does seem like we've jumped the shark on some level.

This can all be solved by people waiting for a proper edited version and that way Dan can say something "off the record" and the editor can just edit that out or anything else deemed questionable.  I understand that could piss off some, but thats what I did when I was editing the show.

I was ok with letting this thread die but Tuck's post made me crack up.

It isn't about fighting, it is about doing. We need a better dilution model that directs pay and is more versatile than what we have along with a propsal/approval system.  Unfortunately there are a lot of other things that also need doing.

I'm not sure everyone has the cause and effect correct.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

The whole thing was incredibly amaturish.  If you are going to call yourself a professional PR whatever, then your first public announcement is what we saw....  I don't even know where to start.

I do believe there is a communication issue here, regardless of what is claimed.  Why does there appear to be 2 fairly distinct takes on everything, split by the West/East. I don't think it can be overcome totally but things can be done.  I think a lot of people would agree about Dan.  He either pisses off other blockchain projects, or somehow seeds panic in others.  He needs a PR adviser. That is for sure.

My personal belief is we just need to move quickly to a new model of government/proposals. That is the problem. I don't have as much faith in Dan anymore but I still see Bitshares as having a lot of potential.

What does a real Western company do?  They get rid of the CEO.  Well we can't do that and we wouldn't want to lose Dan, but I would like to see his power lessened. This can be done by having stakeholders vote on what to prioritize/fund in a reasonable manner.  When that happens people don't have to run screaming everytime they hear a word thunder down off Mount Bytemaster.  Instead, it'll just be Dan our chief advisor, one voice amongst many.

So wait. Did we just lose one of our lead developers? And did one of our (ex) lead developers just call our main advantage over other crypto-startups 'a hack', and a lose-lose?

 

THe Delegate system takes out free market incentives.  I kept expecting people to say they'd take pay X in bitUSD.  Never happened.  There is no market that isn't binary and thus shit... The % pay isn't voted on and is committed to once people put up the large upfront free.

It isn't lose-lose, it is win-lose/lose-win, just not much win-win but never lose-lose...

and it has been called a hack for some time.. I don't think anyone ever really thought otherwise who read and conversed in the forums.

AFAIK they're in order of their posting time. 

I see no good arguments against this. If they want help from us to raise new capital and become a semi-decentralized exchange, we should obviously take the opportunity. What am I missing?

The title suggests that we're looking to loan them enough $ so they are not running on fractional reserves.  Fundind development to be a flagship decentralized exchange is different.