I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate.
Lots of people, such as me, listen to the recordings. If you'd propose to get that information to us another way, I'm all for it, but as long as critical updates are buried in a one hour Mumble session or in a string of 100 forum messages, then I for one am going to dig until I find what I need to make informed decisions. I would keep the recordings, but if there is an alternative, then that's fine.
The notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.
...
Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]
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!
So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.
I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions. We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but...Submitted for your consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedspeakQuoteThe notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.
...
Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]
So seek the following solution: in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?
Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169)
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions. We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but...
The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions. We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but...Submitted for your consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedspeakQuoteThe notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.
...
Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]
So seek the following solution: in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?
Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169)
Greenspan's professional reputation was destroyed by the 1998/ financial crisis during which the entire banking sector was discovered to be systemically insolvent.
He's not somebody we should seek to emulate.
I don't see how unrecorded sessions help the matter. Share is a share is a share regardless of what medium it takes place in, or the ease at which it can be disseminated and access by others."What is" ...is kind of elusive at present. There are forces at work that I have only a hint of a clue about and actually I am pretty frustrated about it...if we are going to be a decentralized organization ...we need ORGANIZATION. Organization of bodies starts with organization of thoughts...which means we have to effectively communicate. This doesn't grow from decisions by fiat.
I think the only solution to all of this is to stop talking about whats coming, and start talking about what is.
If you want to continue the mumble updates with Dan.. let him talk about new features that were introduced in the last update and how they can be applied in different ways. This is something I have found he is good at... giving examples of applying bitshares technology to help understand it better.This is generally what happens in mumble sessions. As has been stated before, the only times anything other than that comes up is when Dan wants to run stuff by us like the "bingo inside the wallet" conversation that started and the community abruptly ended without fanfare (as opposed to what would have likely happened if he would have done the announcement through the blog, the forum, or a "PR" guy).
This eliminates the danger of 'fedspeak', eliminates the speculation fears.. and is simply an update on what is already currently in the open and is helping to promote its value.Agreed.
Question time would have to be about what we currently have going on.. and suggestions can be given as well for consideration.Precisely. History shows us (along with a pretty statistically significant community poll) that these have been of great benefit. Now that we have marketing gurus coming in, some have even said they would like to use some of our content and promote our hangouts as one of the centerpieces of what we do!
There is no problem in recording this.. on the contrary.. we would likely want to promote it.
The off the record 'tell us the future' stuff kinda reeks of the same kind of 'insider trading' stuff that all of us on the outside have watched happen in places like Congress in the US where they get to hear about all thats coming before it happens and get to make moves accordingly.100% agree.
BitShares will grow with visionary entrepreneurs, not with being told bedtime stories by daddy Dan to fuel our bitDreams... not to sound harsh but that's a fact.. and sooner we stop being afraid of the dark, the sooner all of us who have the potential to become shining beacons can start to shine instead of standing in the shadows of I3.It is true that Bytemaster is not the only person who could be doing these hangouts. I have reached out to every developer I can, including those who are not part of the "invictus" team who are working on 3rd party services and applications to bring them to the community, but have only had a few show interest. (Honorable mentions here? Hackfisher, Indolering, Taulant, Data, Cob, and Adam Ernest).
Stan said somewhere when this all went down that bitshares is growing up.. from my current understanding and perspective on all this.. I can see that is what is happening now.If we are growing up, we are genuinely considering cutting off our legs because of growing pains.
This is my 'counter' proposal regarding holding meetings if there are going to be any. Hold reviews of releases as they happen. If this is how things start to happen then naturally this gives plenty of time and preparation for whatever PR Bitshares has in place to decide on or approve whatever Dan might want to say about the releases and even allow them to align their messaging for higher impact. Good on all fronts I think.I am not sure I understand what you mean by this portion...could you please give more information?
Part of the problem is that Dan runs out of stuff to say for an hour every week. The time is not tailored to the amount of information he feels a need to share. So sometimes we get a few more random discussion which apparently is a something of a problem.
The proposal system is not so that we can hear from the big holders, it is so that their interests are covered. Anyone who has enough time to post on the forums has enough time to make a proposal..
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.100% agreed. Maidsafe is no slouch on their execution.
- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.Max is smart, BitSharesTV is awesome. If Dan feels the need to speak, there should be no gatekeepers. Of course Dan should also be able to reserve the right to refrain from answering questions he doesn't know the answer to or that the feels would be especially harmful to answer.
- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.100% agree...however, we don't have that implemented yet and I doubt we will for another year at least.
- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.100% agree--this idea of one PR rep to rule them all scares me more than anything--especially when said PR person has already effectively done the opposite of inspire confidence if his debut is any indicator of future performance.
- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.If Dan only goes on BitSharesTV, you can expect most every "important person" in the ecosystem to follow suit. Don't get me wrong. Of course I want to see Max successful...and I don't want to be a talking head. I like organizing communities.
- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.Again, 100% agreed.
- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.Again, 100% agreed.
Why not trust the community more, or spend the money to them? All the time trusting some people the community don't know.
We are an international audience and there is no way in hell to make this fair if not recorded.
BitShares Community,I think it would be unfair to have these mumble session like before and not record them. Like before means with updates and announcements. That would be a disadvantage for all market participants that can't attend.
I would like to thank everyone who was able to participate in our discussion on mumble this morning, and I want to extend my hand and express my gratitude for all of your efforts at helping to form a communication bridge between the east and west. I am looking forward to many such meetings in the future, and I am honored and humbled to be a part of such a brilliant and gifted group of individuals.
That said, I would like to offer to you a proposal. This topic was discussed in our meeting, however I do not wish to imply that there was any overall consensus. Rather, I have organized a version that I would like to bring forward in order to stimulate further discussion.
We cherish the level of intellectual intimacy that we have thus far enjoyed between ourselves and one of our beloved founders, Dan Larimer. We also understand that as a community, our organization has often suffered from sudden market turmoil because it seems we have yet to figure out how to enable the free and open exchange of ideas between us, without leaving ourselves vulnerable to subjective responses from people for whom it is impossible to grasp the larger picture. This is not by means the only force at play, but I present it for purposes of illustrative example.
We discussed, in our session today, the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year, and the point was often raised that if a radical idea was initially proposed by bytemaster in a mumble session, the blunder would be quickly contained and not escalate very far. We observed that this was likely due to the immediate feedback he received, combined with a general human tendency to grasp the more subtle implications of words when they are spoken, rather than written on a page. By extension, whenever he brought fourth a radical idea or concept on the forums, the asynchronous delay (lack of real-time participation) combined with natural language barriers became a powerful fertilizer for seeds of doubt that would then be cast and sewn across the landscape.
In most places within the United States, it is illegal to use recording devices inside a courtroom. The reason for this is because a recording can potentially be taken out of context, and used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. The written account of an eyewitness, or an artists graphic rendering of a dramatic court scene do not have 1: 10,000 the impact of a “viral” video or audio recording. To make up for this, a high percentage of court preceedings are open to the public, so as to protect against overt or blatant foul play. Again, by no means the rule, but presented for arguments sake.
My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.
Public Relations is the art of managing the spread of information, much more than placing restrictions on the source of the information. Many Hollywood actors are prone to running at the mouth and making a fool of themselves, but if they have a good publicist, the channels through which this information might otherwise be spread are carefully observed and controlled. Thus, the restrictions I am proposing are aimed at limiting the damage that might be caused by our open discussion by eliminating the opportunity for it to spread.
The greater internal PR strategy will continue to fall upon those who are working closely within his circle of trust. Perhaps they might consider advising Mr. Larimer to limit all initial presentation of his more radical ideas to to weekly or bi-weekly mumble sessions? That way we can continue to enjoy the inspiration and excitement of his wisdom and understanding, and he can continue to enjoy the benefits of personal growth through our valuable feedback.
What say you all?
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.+5%
- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.
- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.
- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.
- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.
- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.+5%
- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.
- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.
- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.
- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.
- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.
My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.
Are you suggesting having no recording at all? Not even an edited release? If this is the case, my response follows.
It's all well and good making anyone welcome, but I'm frustrated by the idea of having no recording.
The problem is that the mumble sessions are brilliant! Currently I can listen to a recording if I can't make it to the session in real time. I can even submit questions on reddit for fuzzy to ask for me.
As it stands the mumble sessions are wonderful for the community. I consider them to be a very valuable part of the BitShares experience.
If there are no recordings, only people lucky enough to be able to attend will get the benefit, and I think this is CRAP! I don't care for the conference analogy - it doesn't hold water (surely the reasons are obvious?).
Anyone is welcome to the mumble sessions if they're lucky enough to not be:
- at work
- asleep
- doing something with their family
- having a medical procedure done
- in an area with no internet access...
...I was going to do an absurdly long list for comedy value, but unfortunately I have to go out because I have other commitments which are unavoidable... :P
..the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year
..
My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them.
Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.
During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.
Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.
During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.
Hey Joey, I wasn't trying to imply that this was your suggestion. I did my best to make it clear in the OP that I just wanted to explore this idea a bit further and get everyone's opinions.
Truthfully, I was not fully convinced myself of the validity of this approach myself, but nevertheless, I thought it prudent to continue the dialogue for purposes of gaining clarity about the issue from the community. I tried to present the strongest arguments I could as to its merits, and to offer them up as a prospective solution. If we can use this forum to clarify where we all stand on divisive issues such as this one, it will be easier to understand how and where to apply our efforts at addressing any real or perceived elephants in the room.
It sucks that I currently just can't find the time to join you guys in the mumble .. even though it's 4 pm local time :(
The solution is not about limiting ideas or the channel where the ideas flow. There are great values in transparency and the free-flow of ideas. Rather it should be how the ideas are to be taken up by the sharesholders. We need a way for the sharesholders to VOTE on those ideas. If the shareholders VOTE for the ideas, they will have no reason to panic or sell bts as a way to 'vote with their legs'.
- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
The solution is not about limiting ideas or the channel where the ideas flow. There are great values in transparency and the free-flow of ideas. Rather it should be how the ideas are to be taken up by the sharesholders. We need a way for the sharesholders to VOTE on those ideas. If the shareholders VOTE for the ideas, they will have no reason to panic or sell bts as a way to 'vote with their legs'.- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
Fuzz, you may be right this ability is another year out, but IMO it's a year overdue. If the whole point of this DPoS ecosystem is to empower the shareholders this should have been a high priority to implement early. The fact it's still not considered important is clear testimony to how comfortable "the leaders" are with being in control. For all the "talk" about principles and giving people a voice thru "honest voting" why is it we don't have this extremely important functionality for our very own community?
It's a matter of resource management while in the early stages. Which would you rather have, a stable client or proposal voting?Both would be nice but as it stands we have neither.
What we should be aiming for is the success of the project, that is BitShares BTS, for the sake of bringing financial freedom to the world and enriching those who believe in it enough to invest in it. Handing over full power to the shareholders with proposal voting may be a beautiful principle, and inevitable, but it's worthless if it doesn't result in success of the project and could even be harmful if done in a rush or with the sacrifice of other vital features.
I'm always open to rational argument and could change my mind. Cube's argument of investors 'voting with their legs' if this feature isn't implemented is compelling.
It's a matter of resource management while in the early stages. Which would you rather have, a stable client or proposal voting?Both would be nice but as it stands we have neither.
I understand the limited resources issue. The problem at hand however is management decisions and how they're made. Proposal voting is a mechanism that could solve that, IF leadership offers proposals to provide shareholder input / review / decisions. So even if we did have proposal voting it wouldn't do any good if management chooses not to use it and go in whatever direction they will.
This seems like a management culture issue.
I'm all for letting the inner circle of devs set policy & plot a course into the future, so long as those decisions are wise for all shareholders & the ecosytem, it's even OK if they make a few mistakes along the way. That's been my perspective all along, but I'm beginning to question the wisdom of continuing to let them do so when experience is showing a pattern of poor decisions. At what point do shareholders say, enough? Is that the very trigger that got us here, some whale said enough? Fine, but to compound whatever problem upset the whale there's a knee jerk reaction to cut off ALL communication? Two wrongs don't make a right.
The team has demonstrated clear and innovative thinking in the technical realm, as well as the business realm at the high level. But leadership is sorely lacking in marketing skills and analysis of market impact released information can have. This isn't the first time this issue has arisen and unless measures are put in place to address this core issue it is bound to happen again. It disrupts the culture, which isn't always a bad thing but in this case will dramatically affect it to be less transparent and more centralized.
I think Dan & Stan should think about choosing a trusted set of community members to serve as a vetting committee or review board for potentially volatile decisions that could negatively impact the market. Information to be disclosed to the public should be numerically ranked in terms of market impact. IMO it would be wise to select these members from the pool of 101 delegates. How many to choose? As long as there are at least 3 it would be a dramatic improvement over the zero we have now. Should those committee members be made public? I can see pros & cons for anonymity as well as public accountability.
I am just frustrated by seeing this problem repeat itself.QuoteWhat we should be aiming for is the success of the project, that is BitShares BTS, for the sake of bringing financial freedom to the world and enriching those who believe in it enough to invest in it. Handing over full power to the shareholders with proposal voting may be a beautiful principle, and inevitable, but it's worthless if it doesn't result in success of the project and could even be harmful if done in a rush or with the sacrifice of other vital features.
I agree with this, as I believe most here do.QuoteI'm always open to rational argument and could change my mind. Cube's argument of investors 'voting with their legs' if this feature isn't implemented is compelling.
Let's hope we can keep that from occurring! How this issue is dealt with may very well put anchors or wings on people's feet.
So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.
I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.
What makes it difficult is that I envision a very large overhaul being needed, rather than quick and messy proposal vote system being slapped together without anonymity and without access to all voters due full client usability problems (which are improving but still have a fair distance to go).
Haven't read the whole thread, but anyone can trivially record mumble sessions without using the built-in function. There is going to be no way to stop people from recording.
- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.+5%
- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.
- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.
- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.
- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.
- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.
- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.
+5%
Publishing without review is a bad idea in general. In the end it is up to each individual to be responsible for the quality of their own output by delegating time to different media and seeking reviews from confidants whos judgements they know they can trust.
I feel this controversy highlights the fact the BitShares ecosystem is far from mature and proves that our rhetoric doesn't match our practice. Our vision isgoodgreat, but the words used to describe it strongly imply our ecosystem is stronger than it is and our claims of self regulation / self governance are better than they actually are.
A simple SWOT analysis would help to better understand the underlying issue.
SWOT
Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. :-X
For some people glass is always half empty :)Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. :-X
Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For some people glass is always half empty :)Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. :-X
Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.For some people glass is always half empty :)Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. :-X
Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are growing up. We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak.
It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak. For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem.
Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak. And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them. It is time to fix that :)
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.
That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.For some people glass is always half empty :)Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. :-X
Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are growing up. We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak.
It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak. For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem.
Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak. And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them. It is time to fix that :)
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.
Thank you fuzzy for spreading message of cooperation. :) +5%
..
So is this minimal developer effort worth it? Personally, I think we need better cold storage and restricted_owner support first. And not just blockchain and CLI support but GUI support and usable UX. Otherwise, I worry that voter apathy is just going to remain bad and the proposals will be of limited value. But after that I definitely think it is worth it to have at least this basic feature set so that we can actually give a fair voice to the shareholders.
..