Until BTS' market cap has swallowed all other crypto currencies the pay a BTS delegate can offer is still not competitive. I think the way we will take bitcoins market cap is by headhunting all their developers, it will cause so much controversy and attention in the community that they will be unable to avoid researching and finally understanding us. In fact, I think simply annoucing to the industry that we're going to hire all the good developers in the space, will render them unable to ignore us. If they understand the economics involved, and understand we will always be able to pay a higher fair market rate for a good developer (since we will get their skills applied fully to improve the blockchain, AND we will gain publicity from the move), then they will understand the inevitability of our dominance.

IMO it is plausible to get the entire crypto market cap in 3 months if we all work together in this mass decentralized headhunting of top talent. Every holder of coins will intuitively know that their coins aren't worth more than the developers currently maintaining and improving them. If they see the talent siphoning off, their demand will follow. Or even better, they will rage on whine publicly on forums about us, causing us to gain even more attention.

However we cannot really begin this if top developers have to make due with 50 BTS per block. I like the 50 BTS cap, but I think it is vital we can offer a competitive pay to _anyone_ who shows interest (and is worth it), and we should be ready to offer even, say, Gavin 20% more than his current salary if he joins us. Imagine what would happen to our market cap if Gavin publicly announced he would step down from the BF and join bitshares as a delegate. Even if we had to pay him something outrageous like 80k per month it would still be an insanely good investment, and if it later turned out he simply wasn't that good a developer we could vote him out again. The DAC should be able to do anything that it determines is profitable.

But before we can get started with it, we/I need the forums blessing that we/I can go offer developers more than 2,5k in salary without causing a shitstorm here if they sign up for more than two delegates (the pay I "offer" will just be an example in my opening spiel when trying to headhunt them). In fact even if I don't get the "blessing" I will still do it, but then I'll just have the shitstorm happen now rather than in the delegate-developers application thread. Once people see the massive market cap increase some celebrity developer signing up would cause, I think all the concerns about multiple delegates will disappear. In fact just the effect of them signing up might on its own be enough to render the need for several delegates unnecessary. Still we need to be prepared to be flexible.

I personally plan to target Amir Taaki first, as I think out of all people he's probably the one who deserves to work directly for the blockchain the most. Also he's currently being slapped in the face with the hard reality that bitcoin development isn't sustainable on a daily basis, and will understand the value proposition of BTS quickly.

So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.

5% isn't an outrageous amount of interest, but it is significant in this era of negative interest rates. I think being able to use concrete numbers will make it so much easier to make mainstream people curious. If it becomes trusted enough, I could see this becoming viral knowledge between cautious savers especially in China, with people rushing to put their life savings into it if they hear about it from people they already trust - the Chinese are fond of getting on trends about what the safest longterm investments are. Right now we're seeing a housing bubble pop, and it would be the perfect time for them to be introduced to a new safe investment.

To prepare for the influx of new users that will come after the merger and the marketing push, I think it is vital that we begin to organize our community much more efficiently. The key to this will be a more streamlined forum, and a professional team managing both the forum and the mumble server, who can oversee and pay out bounties to developers that work implement it all into a greater frictionless framework that will enable any new user to quickly join the community and instantly connect with existing members and get any help they require, in live chat, forum posts or mumble voice calls.

Similarly, it is also vital we move to create a forum structure that will allow for efficient delegate applications, and allow all developers from the broader altcoin community who wish to integrate with us a very transparent and streamlined platform to put forth their application to the stakeholders.

Currently, as I understand it, bitsapphire and toast are the forum are the administrators of this forum. However, given that they are both developers I think it is a bad allocation of specialized labor to have them wasting their time on moderation and other forum stuff that non-developers can do. I propose we choose to hire as delegates at least 2 members of the community to work as full time community managers, one English and one Chinese. They can set up delegates that can raise funds for the forum and will allow them to work full time organizing and integrating the community, and welcoming any newcomers. They can also function as efficient conduits of information between forum/mumble users and developers, in both the english and chinese community.

Obviously it is us stakeholders who are the ones that decide who should be hired as community managers, so we need to dicuss and reach a consensus on who we are going to elect once paid delegates are implemented, so they can prepare for the work and prepare to learn to set up delegates.

Personally I'd like to nominate Fuzzy as the english community manager, and tbk as the chinese community manager.

My reasoning behind choosing them is simply that they are the ones from the english and chinese community, respectively, that I trust the most. I recognize there are also other contributors who would be very much worthy of these positions, but even if they are not chosen it is important to remember that fuzzy, for instance, would be able to raise funds for bounties to pay to everyone he believes are helping. What is most important is that we can trust the community manager to manage their funds responsibly, as we can then trust them with a relatively large amount of money to leverage across the community and fund things such as professional, around-the-clock translations done by those in the community who have already proven themselves by doing it for free before.

I imagine we could aim to pay them something like 10-15k USD per month here in the beginning, but we should also have a discussion about what is fair in this regard, and how much of the funds they can take for themselves, and how much should be spent on paying out bounties.

So I've been spamming the forum quite a bit, one second crying out against VOTE and calling I3 dishonest, the next whining for transparency, then insulting those who lost money to DNS while sucking up to BM, and in general just posting walls of text everywhere. Edit: I want to clarify that I don't actually think that I3 are dishonest, I was just pissed off in the moment.

Now is time for my huge wall of text about my thoughts of what BTS will become, and why I think it will grow a lot faster than anyone are expecting.

My premise is this: BTS is more than just a cryptocurrency and it is more than just shares 2.0. It is a completely new paradigm of human corporate organization and it solves some of the fundamental problems that have constrained companies, governments, armies and every other organizational structure for thousands of years.

Economic activity and value growth are the products of capital and labor. The point of trade and organization has always been to specialize labor into the activity that is most useful or valuable (i.e. division of labor), and to allocate capital to the place where it is most beneficial.

The free market blindly fights in an evolutionary game of survival of the fittest to figure out which specific allocation is most valuable for a given individual. As a competitive advantage organizations form within the free market as a method of leveraging the intellect of humans who specialize in leadership to control others into allocating their labor towards what will be most beneficial. This gives the benefit of allowing very specialized division of labor and more intelligent allocation of a combined pool of capital. Due to economies of scale there can be a huge advantage for a company to grow in size in order to leverage specific specialized areas of the capital and labor they control. One example could be marketing - if two factories make the same product it is better for them to unify under a single brand as they can then double their marketing effort for the products of both factories, rather than having two different brands and marketing separately. A more simple example is simply factory production, since when volume is scaled up capital and labor can increasingly specialize and thus give increasing returns. Anyway, using the simple logic of economies of scale, it would be logical for all human economic activity to unified under a single company. As we all know, that isn't the case...

Transaction costs, gatekeepers, imperfect information and diminishing returns on investment.

The reason why all humans are not unified under a single a company are numerous, but the most obvious one, is the reason we all know and hate: corrupt gatekeepers that take advantage of the lack of information to extract value from the company without other stakeholders in the organization knowing it. This means as an organization grows and its organizational structure becomes more convoluted and nested, the opportunity of middle managers or middlemen to loot and unfairly extract value from the organization increase. Because it is so universally rampant, the less severe forms of this are socially accepted; slacking off on the job instead of always seeking to apply yourself to the fullest within the organization technically also counts as looting, since you are essentially stealing the money you're getting paid when you're not working. You've entered a contract that pays you for work, and the organization honors it's own part of the contract by paying you, but you don't honor yours since you're not working. Even though this is clearly breach of contract, and thus essentially stealing private property, it is still socially accepted and even admired when people are able to slack off when they work for a corporate giant. These things are totally unavoidable in a traditional organizational structure because of the opaqueness and imperfect information. There are many economic papers that have tried to nail down the exact ratio with which the effectiveness of an employee decreases with each step of growth in the amount of employees, due to increasing opaqueness and decreasing access to information, and it is actually quite high. No matter the exact ratio we can all agree that the average amount of work done by someone working for a startup is a lot higher than the average amount of work done by, say, an Exxon Mobil employee, and this dimishing marginal return constrains Exxon Mobil's growth in some way. Interestingly, exxon mobil is still able to be huge because it employs another imperfection of the market to its own, unfair advantage: regulatory capture.

Bitshares solves these problems by having strong economic incentives for upholding total transparency across the board.

Bitshares employees are hired a different way than employees of a regular organization. Instead of being hired directly by a singular, trusted person or group of people within a seperated area of the organizational structure, new employees are nominated by these employees and then put to the vote by all stakeholders. It is done simply and frictionlessly simply by including them in their slate. This creates a nested structure of transparent trust where anyone trusting the upper level of an organizational structure is able to trace exactly how that trust is funneled down to employees at the lower levels. Should a stakeholder find proof of any employee being a bad apple, it is extremely easy to put forth this proof to the larger community of stakeholders and have them instantly voted out. Indeed an investigative organizational structure that specializes in analysing the work of other delegates and sound the alarm if an unprofitable, stealing or colluding employee is found could be implemented to have clear economic incentives for professionals to weed out the bad apples. If a bad apple is found the network of transparent trust that delegate slates creates can be used trace who originally nominated or appointed this employee, and they can be investigated to see if they are also malicious, or it was simply a mistake. This gives a strong economic incentive for all existing employees to only ever nominate new employees that they think are fully honest and profitable for the DAC.

These incentives combine to form a system where every new employee added to the company, DO NOT have diminishing marginal returns due to an increasing lack of information, but rather have INCREASING returns because they are able to leverage their own output onto the entire network; a combination of economies of scale and metcalfes law. The result of this is that any currently existing organizational structure or company that is smaller than bitshares will ALWAYS benefit from integrating itself into the bitshares organizational structure, since it will be able to create higher value, leverage a larger network, and even have more efficient employee management due to the effective transparency and governance that the bitshares delegate system creates. For every person or organization that is integrated into bitshares, the speed and ability with which new organizations can be integrated and new employees can be hired will increase with no diminishing returns. If all this reasoning turns out to be fact, then the only logical conclusion is that bitshares will eventually integrate every single structure of currently existing human economic organization. It will be a company that does all economic activity, owns all assets and employs all employees on the entire planet, and is in turn jointly owned by all humans. I even think that it will take over the non-profitable duties of governments and charities, such as protecting the innocent, caring for the poor and misfortunate, funding basic research, supporting and protecting art and historical relics, protecting the environment and biodiversity, and space exploration. This is because most humans are willing to allocate a certain percentage of their spending power to altruistic measures, and will thus in some situations vote for things that are not profitable, but rather charitable. A organization-wide compromise will be reached between pure profits and pure charity, and i suspect that this consensus will eventually be much higher than the current charitable rate of even welfare states, since people will become increasingly generous once the indoctrinations of the incumbent system are gradually phased out.

Here's how I see the timeline playing out assuming absolutely best case scenario:

November: BTS is created, and we start to mess around with the funding of delegates and try to figure out the best practices for voting and oversight and such. Once we get that sorted out, the marketing push begins.

December: The on and offramps are revealed, and the big marketing push for bitUSD begins. A big push to hire every single developer in the crypto space that is currently working for free, and thus donating their labor, will begin autonomously. This includes things like bitcoin developers, the OB developers, wallet devs such as mycelium and darkwallet, and others. Some of the developers will be so strong in their beliefs that they will insist on refusing payment out of loyalty to the bitcoin blockchain, but some of them will invariably recognize the great advantage getting paid for their work will give them.

January/February: we begin talks with NXT and etherium to buy them and their userbase out, mainly to get our hands on their developers and to cause a huge scene in the crypto space and diversifying our stakeholder base. This integration will eventually happen no matter what, but the time it takes before it's done is hard to judge since it depends not on economic factors (which are 100% in favor of integration) but rather on pride, confusion and fear by the current NXT and ethereum stakeholders.

Spring 2015: We reach 101 profitable employees, with more employees looking to join. Stakeholders vote to increase the delegate cap rather than kicking out an incumbent profitable employee. This will continuously happen and the amount of delegates will eventually increase exponentially.

Summer 2015: We buy out a midsize bitcoin infrastructure company, such as skyhook. This newly acquired company will integrate all its employees directly as delegates in the bitshares organization, and it will change its business model to hire new employees as delegates that are responsible for maintaining internally owned ATM's in a specific area (ie they will no longer sell the ATMs to others, because it is more profitable to have them owned and applied by bitshares). Skyhook will then begin mass producing ATMs at highest capacity and the network will initally subsidize placing them EVERYWHERE, as this will be extremely profitable over time and will be a very profitable long term investment.

Winter 2015: We buy out bitpay, and probably surpass bitcoin in market cap. We've probably also hired all the current bitcoin and altcoin developers at this point, and integrated almost every altcoin into our system. The only blockchains we will be competing with at this point are clones of bitshares that are attempting to refine our organizational structure or strategy in some way, or specializing the blockchain to an extreme degree in some area where our scale work against us.

This is the best of the best of the best case scenario imaginable. It's probably not gonna happen but I don't consider it completely outside the realm of possibility. Interestingly, only the first few months actually depend on I3, the rest will be done in a decentralized manner due to the independent alignment of economic incentives, however I3 will probably lead the effort in whichever way they consider more profitable. The important thing is that this train will run on its own once it gets the tiniest bit of momentum, and our fortunes will be pretty much secured.

Does this sound scary to you? It's definitely scary to me. When I first started to draw these conclusions I panicked because I thought of the massive danger if this system somehow gets corrupted along the way, just like every other large human organization that has ever existed. It will be like the nuclear bomb, once this thing is invented and unleashed on the world there is no taking it back, even by the creators. However, corruption doesn't arise spontanously in a system, it either exists at it's creation, or it enters later on. And that is the KEY, because WE are this seed, and I choose to believe that every person on this forum is a good human being, in fact more than just a good human being, I believe the vast majority here are EXTREMELY committed to fight corruption and evil in all its forms, because my impression is that the majority of people were brought here exactly because of that, rather than profit.

Because our system is completely transparent, and because we are the early adopters and majority owners, we can trust each other to always be on the lookout should any corruption attempt to enter the system. If a bank attempts to buy us out, we will revolt and it will never happen. If a delegate attempts to argue that transparency isn't needed we will refuse them. If a group of delegates collude to attempt to turn the voting process into a political shitshow, we will see through their deceit and kick them out.

Okay, now you have it, this is why I'm honored to be an early adopter, and this is why I'm honored to be here with you all - because from the short time I've known you all on this forum, I have overwhelmingly seen the desire to do good be prioritized over everything else, even profits. It's as if running this thing in a way that benefits humanity is more than just our collective desire, it's our purpose.

And that is why I now believe, contrary to what I wrote earlier, that we not only are the right people to take this amazingly scary and wonderful project off the ground, we deserve it.

Okay so first of all, I'm so insanely exited for the birth of BTS!!!! It's going to be so freaking awesome, I can hardly put it into words. There'll be a new calendar, year 2014 = year 0. This is a complete gamechanger for humanity.

Okay, so on to the topic:

During the multi-DAC phase it made sense to have a centralized development team and an external funding pool to fund their projects and pay their salary. However, now that everything gets consolidated into a single blockchain, we can simplify and improve things tremendously, and we can drastically increase transparency. I want to stress that I argue for these measures not because I don't trust I3, on the contrary I have immense faith in them because they have really proven themselves to be absolute geniuses. Us, currently existing investors do not really need that much transparency, but these measures will be for new investors who will greatly value it, especially those coming from the altcoin community. With enough transparency, it will be so much easier for prospective buyers to decide to buy in, if they're able to see all the cards. As an investor that wants to see our DAC grow, I present these two measures I would like to see implemented:

Consolidate all assets and employees under the direct control of BTS

With the introduction of the revolutionary concept of share dilution in a DAC, we have gained an insane competitive advantage over any other blockchain due to the ability that we now have to rapidly fund development and marketing in a decentralized manner that scales infinitely. To ensure total transparency and optimal governance, we should have it as a rule that there will never be any middle men for paying salary i.e. any person who works full time and is paid a salary by BTS, must work directly for the blockchain rather than as a worker in some external, centralized management structure. With the introduction of share dilution there is simply no need for anyone to be employed by anything else than the DAC.

I would like to see every team member on this page http://bitshares.org/community/team/ apply to become a paid delegate after the hard fork. It would greatly increase transparency and understanding of the average shareholder about what exactly is being done, and who is doing it, and will MASSIVELY increase shareholder confidence and demand. I don't think anyone has ever seen a company structure like this before, the level of transparency will be absolutely revolutionary. Once the entire team has been integrated as paid delegates, it will provide an excellent showcasing to new developers that might be interested in working for the blockchain.

Also, now that BTSX has bought out AGS, that means we own 100% of what AGS donation are designated to be spent on. With the new capability we have to pay salary directly to team members, instead of going through an external entity, there is no need for these funds to be stored any longer. I propose that they are all used to buy up BTSX, and then burned. The only exceptions should be the funds set aside for the marketing push, and the funds that will be used to make the bitUSD buywall.

In the future, if a delegate wishes to raise a large, one time sum for a project, they should simply issue a user issued asset that is basically a bond for the project with a small interest rate. The bond will then be paid back by the delegate increasing their pay rate. This ensures that the DAC will never have to take on the risk of entrusting a single person with a large amount of money, but only people who specialize in judging risk will have to do that.

Create a forum for large stakeholders where EVERYTHING will be revealed, thus ending secrecy and implementing absolute transparency.

I have never been a big fan of the secrecy that I3 has had for stakeholders, but I fully understand they were necessary for competition reasons. However, now that BTS is maturing, I think it is time to implement a measure that will enable the community to have absolute transparency by proxy, through having independent people in the know. A forum for big stakeholders will allow at least a part of independent stakeholders to know everything that is going on, so they can relay to the broader community that everything is going well. As long as the required stake to gain access is large enough, there will be no chance that a competitor will manage to get in and steal an idea (if they bought that large a stake, they'd rather just collaborate). I'd say something like 0.1% should be the minimum to gain access to this private board. I think that eventually, when we have achieved the Network Effect, there will be no need for any secrecy at all, because there'll be no chance that people will choose to compete with us rather than collaborate.



As a shareholder, I think that if these measures were implemented then it would be such a HUGE value boost, due to the high demand for transparency, especially in the crypto world. It would really help cement the launch pad we are building to get ready for the marketing push and the Moon. People who are smart enough to understand will literally not be able to come up with a single reason why they shouldn't invest, or even bet the farm.

I currently own a couple million of shares, and the only thing holding me back from going all-in is the transparency. If I get a commitment that this absolute transparency will be implemented with the formation of BTS, I'll be making another huge buy. I'm just so insanely excited for BTS!!!! It's literally one of the greatest things EVER. We are shaping the history of the universe. I feel silly talking about the moon, we're going to the freaking GALACTIC CENTER.

Here are my suggestions, along with a short example of how you could use it to describe what the system is and why it is beneficial

Delegated Capital Allocation (DCA)
Delegates can be authorize to allocate capital on behalf of stakeholders to fund projects that will be profitable and generate a net return for the shareholders.

Delegated Fundraising (DF)
"Delegated fundraiser is a type of delegate that has been approved by shareholders to raise funds at a set rate to fund a specific project that is profitable and generates a net return for the shareholder."

Decentralized Internal Funding (DIF)
"DIF is the system a DAC uses to raise funds from shareholders to fund profitable projects that generate net returns for the DAC and shareholders."

Please post if you have any other suggestions, and post which one of the existing suggestions you prefer. Once we start to use a better term than the FUD inducing "share dilution", people will perhaps calm down.

Around 20 bitshares stakeholders just finished an "emergency" mumble session with bytemaster about the new proposal. Before he joined us the atmosphere was very panicky because people really didn't understood what was going on regarding the merger of all DAC.

To help other stakeholders and community members to understand that there is no need to panic, we will all post our thoughts regarding the proposal before and after hearing BM's explanation.

The mumble recording will be posted in this thread as soon as its ready, I urge everyone to listen to it as it has all the explanation.

Edit: Mumble recording posted here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10181.msg133232#msg133232

My TL;DR of the situation is that Bytemaster was too quick to jump the gun and didn't manage to communicate his proposal properly. It is an incredible good idea but many stakeholders panicked because they thought he was doing a 360 on decentralization or that I3 was running out of funding, or some other crisis.

So, anyone who has read the posts in the VOTE 2.0 thread, and has the ability to think rationally, will have already arrived at the conclusion that BTSX has been sentenced to death.

Dan and Stan will adamantly deny this, of course, but no matter how much you trust their intelligence, in this regard you cannot trust their honesty, because they have massive financial incentives in convincing investors that the new vote DAC will not hurt BTSX, so people don't panic-divest now. If the BTSX market cap evaporated now, the VOTE DAC and the rest of the bitshares ecosystem would be hurt immensely.

That doesn't mean the VOTE DAC will not cannibalize and destroy BTSX once it is released.

Let's consider the facts:

The vote DAC will be built on the bitshares toolkit, and have all the features of BTSX, including a separate bitUSD. In the long run it will be irrational of VOTE delegates not to expand this to include all other bitassets, and I assume user issued assets will be included by default since they are in the toolkit, and there is no reason not to.

The vote DAC will share marketing funnels and budget with BTSX, and will share the on ramp and possibly the off ramp of BTSX.

The VOTE DAC has some unique system that will allow it provide value beyond the asset exchange and the inherent value of a DPOS powered crypto currency. This will supposedly allow the DAC to gain network effect very fast.

The DAC will have inflation as a system of long term funding. BM has repeatedly stated that the lack of inflation is the biggest drawback of btsx.

In short, the VOTE DAC is basically a btsx clone with a unique system to gain network effect, and with inflation to fund development and marketing.

Unless BTSX has somehow managed to bootstrap a massive network, it will be dead once VOTE is released because the network-effect-secret will allow VOTE to grow and promote itself while BTSX cannot, while simultaneously also possessing all the selling points that BTSX has. The only advantages BTSX could be thought to have are no inflation (which BM has repeatedly said is a great weakness) and the bootstrapped network (currently non-existent; there are only investors/speculators)

Now many people will chime in saying that the VOTE DAC will not be offering bitassets like BTSX does, and will not focus on the same users, or try to make money in the same markets. What you are describing is economic irrationality. The purpose of a DAC is to maximize shareholders worth, and the majority of the voting stakeholders in the vote DAC would have to be altruistic if BTSX were to be untouched.

The economic reality is that a DAC will do whatever it can to provide as much value as possible, no matter its initial design. Stakeholders will always vote to increase the value of their shares - it doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, this is an irrefutable fact. VOTE stakeholders will vote to cannibalize BTSX if it is profitable for them. The only way to prevent aggressive expansion, and the inevitable cannibalization of BTSX , would be to centralize the VOTE DAC in some way (this would have the side effect of ensuring that the DAC would be dead on arrival, and will thus be unlikely to happen).

The truth is that no matter how a DPOS DAC starts out, if it gains a significant network effect then the main value proposition of it will eventually be means of payment and store of wealth. The trifecta of DPOS, Titan and market pegged assets makes a fully networked DPOS blockchain so insanely powerful as a crypto currency, with a level of security, speed and decentralization the world has never seen.

Alright, so my point is that unless the unique network effect secret of VOTE turns out to be so bad that it cannot beat the tiny momentum BTSX currently has, then BTSX is as good as dead...

Or, this whole thing could be done a different way.

Since VOTE will basically be BTSX + secret + inflation, there is nothing preventing BTSX from simply upgrading itself with VOTE's capabilities. Due to the nature of DPOS, it will be incredibly easy to gauge the stakeholders and see whether they support implementing VOTE functionality or not. If the majority does not want inflation, then they will simply vote out any delegate that supports it, and if they support implementing VOTE and inflation, they will vote out any opposing delegates. There would be nothing immoral about letting stakeholders decide the fate of the DAC that they own, especially not when it is now clear that this question is a matter of survival or being cannibalized.

Once inflation was implemented into BTSX, PTS and AGS holders could simply be rewarded with a smaller amount of newly created stake in BTSX, to compensate them for the lack of an independent vote DAC.

This merge would have some additional fortunate consequences, such as removing the need for I3 to spend money on marketing two DACS that are ultimately competing. Marketing two separate, competing bitUSD would be especially awkward.

The VOTE functionality would also get the massive boost of starting out with the extremely active markets and high volume that BTSX has.

Obviously the implementation of VOTE into BTSX shouldn't happen for a long time. What's important is that it is communicated to investors now that if they vote to allow it, then VOTE will rolled into BTSX once it is ready. That would massively boost investor confidence, and general trust and confidence in I3, both in the short term and long term.

To reflect that BTSX with added VOTE functionality would now be more than just an exchange, the name of this new "superDAC" could simply be: BitShares - BTS. This would also be a huge boost for the marketing to the altcoin community of both the BTSX and VOTE functionality, as the no. 4 spot on coinmarketcap would now have a really great name instead of the very confusing BitSharesX.

To anyone who will attack this proposal with the naive idea that competing blockchains can work together or provide value to each other: please think deeply about, and then explain to me in clear economic terms, why shareholders of separate blockchains that operate on the same toolkit with the same features, not will be incentivized to vote for the cannibalization of each other's markets if this is profitable(excluding altruism).

Also think about metcalfes law, and why one network with 2N nodes is much more valuable than 2 networks with N nodes.