I am with you.
Their choice of answering only the question that they like last night and completely disregarding my concerns did not help either.
Just reconfirmation of their arrogance...
I have answered the concerns just above your comment.
I see why people get emotional about the hardcoding. However, as a shareholder people should reflect and think what their actions mean for the ecosystem as a whole.
You can't control for what developers will come up with in the future. The primary reason why Bitcoin took off and so much capital is flowing in Bitcoin startups is because they did not need to ask anybody for permission to do so. Doing anything but welcoming every new project is counterproductive.
With DPOS, for the first time it is possible to fund or compensate
public goods without game theoretical problems of apathy and free riders. This system does not however solve the problem of the massive coordination problem of the public. That's generally what board of directors are for in companies. I have never seen a startup become successful if the shareholders decide on the direction of the company rather than a CEO or board. Unfortunately Bitshares does not have that.
This is why it is necessary for people to take on risks and then propose the finished solution to the public (what we are doing). Under the current delegate paradigm politics and PR mattered more than results. I know some people would disagree but this is how democracy works.
We on the other hand produced a product for market fit, not vote-fit. We believe this is how the market cap of Bitshares will increase in value from now on, not through popular votes but through hard upfront work.
In our proposal we took the initial (big) risk, asked for nothing in return, make it possible for visionary individuals to put their money where their mouth is and support us with this fundraiser, and if it works the risk taking individuals get paid off by the public because a public good has been produced.
What we are proposing is effectively the crypto equivalent of the highly effective and awesome (and free market libertarian approach) of a
Social Impact Bonds, also called
Pay For Success Model. Government centric approaches and examples can be seen
here.
The questions were inflammatory.
The alternative proposal by shentist is rational but does not account for the risk setup of this effective trade between the public and a company for the release of a public good.
Investors in the IOU:
- investing in BTS but being paid in USD, in up to 1-3 years if ever.
- how is this 1:1 conversion gonna work? The IOU holders will sell for discount? Good for them.
People want to diversify. Not everybody is 100% in BTS. The fundraiser will be both in BTS and BTC. At the end of the day, most people we talked to are interested in getting a return in USD terms, not BTS terms. Delegate reimbursement is a risk the donors take due to their rational calculations. There is no return without risk.
BTS and BTC get converted into fiat for our expenditures. On the donation page they get a ticker for the current conversion rate. A UIAs gets sent to their donation private key immediately after 6 BTC confirmations or 101 delegate confirmations. Delegate BTS income gets converted into bitUSD on the system and buys up 1:1 the UIAs.
BTS holders:
- let give some of our BTS to this project so the devs can dumpr them on us right away.
- let's have mandatory voting and diluting of our shares. The more sucsesfull the wallet the more wallet users (aka BTS holders) will have forced/no-choice voting.
Nothing is mandatory, nobody pushes people to use the Moonstone wallet. Everything is opt-in. Example: If you don't like Dropbox storing your data in the cloud, don't use it. If you don't like Bitcoin being pseudonymous rather than anonymous, don;t use it. It's all inherently opt-in.
Now I kindly suggest you go and try to sell this to the one who actually ordered it - PeerTracks.
If they do so we will not mind using it on BTS for free btw.
We started our wallet efforts 2-3 months before Peertracks even was a thing. See this
thread. Very inflammatory way of doing discussions might I say.
PS
Just a quick question - What qualities do you think you (and your wallet) have to think that the dev, making the backbone behind your wallet do not deserve to pre-sale their product and to hold BTS hostage but you can/should do so?
Invictus
did pre-sell both BitShares and and their wallet. Just as we are proposing so too did they promise a potential return to donors who were bold enough to believe in the vision. The end product would also be a quasi-public good. We are not re-using any uniue part of the current BiShares wallet, the architecture choices are just too divergent.
Holding something hostage implies that somebody (maybe you?) feel like you are entitled to somebody else's work and time without anything in return. That is everything but a libertarian and/or free market attitude.