... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] :
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week.
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse .
Actually, that logic is like jumping to your weaker backup plan immediately rather than take advantage of the combined network effect of multiple businesses on a single network. This means you have to negotiate all your support infrastructure and on/off ramps all over again.
Look at how easy it is to switch to a separate chain later, if it turns out one of your hypothetical worries does materialize:. MUSE started out as an asset on BitShares and then switched to its own chain when they decided they needed to for sound business reasons. Even BitShares 1.0 easily switched to 2.0 when the time came. Chains are not a long term commitment and it will become common place for them to move to the best new technology from time to time.
So, you always have a fork as an easy backup plan if the main chain doesn't work out for you for any reason. But prematurely throwing out the other advantages of a ready built supporting community because you have theoretical worries is not something to be considered lightly. You don't just miss out on the network effect we have now, you miss out on what everybody adds to it over time.
The network effect doesn't come with the code.
Unless you want to take centralized control of a chain to ensure that you have "better management", what would you do differently now that BitShares is managed by its owners? I guess a whale could keep enough shares for herself to ensure that she always retains voting control.