BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ander on June 24, 2015, 07:04:55 pm
-
Ever since the 'big announcements' started, the Bitshares price has been underperforming, and its dragged on long enough at this point that its probably not merely a 'sell the news' event, but might indicate some underlying worry about the direction of Bitshares.
It is critical to the success of a project such as Bitshares that the community feels like a united community, working together for the benefit of all, and not as disparate groups in competition with each other. Given that, it seems that it would be a good idea to gauge community views on this issue and try to reach a better consensus. Perhaps we need more explanation from the dev team about the workings and implications of cryptonomex on Bitshares. Maybe we need to better educate the community?
To start, lets figure out where we are right now by answering this poll. Hopefully this can lead to a good discussion and solutions, and the community can move forward together.
-
Markets hate uncertainty?
-
I have confidence in the integrity of Cryptonomex and have been buying BTS.
-
Markets hate uncertainty?
Very much!
So far the results of this poll are a lot more positive and less uncertain than I expected. But of course it doesnt represent people who don't visit the forum.
-
These aren't efficient markets. Don't expect the price to be reflective of the progress that bitshares has made.
-
no product out!
why should anyone buy right now?
nothing changed, because nothing is available. So after 2.0 will be available this could be changing or a couple of days/weeks before.
-
no product out!
why should anyone buy right now?
nothing changed, because nothing is available. So after 2.0 will be available this could be changing or a couple of days/weeks before.
Yeah this. The price also struggled till BitAssets 1.0 were actually released.
Apparently according to the roadmap we're looking at early September which most shareholders will interpret as October or later. So still a while to wait.
Also CCEDK has very little volume/customers so although the announcements there were great, it's unlikely to drive a lot of business to BTS in the interim.
-
no product out!
why should anyone buy right now?
nothing changed, because nothing is available. So after 2.0 will be available this could be changing or a couple of days/weeks before.
Yeah this. The price also struggled till BitAssets 1.0 were actually released.
Apparently according to the roadmap we're looking at early September which most shareholders will interpret as October or later. So still a while to wait.
Also CCEDK has very little volume/customers so although the announcements there were great, it's unlikely to drive a lot of business to BTS in the interim.
So you think rather than people being afraid, they are simply underwhelmed or see the coming events as too far in the future?
-
no product out!
why should anyone buy right now?
nothing changed, because nothing is available. So after 2.0 will be available this could be changing or a couple of days/weeks before.
Yeah this. The price also struggled till BitAssets 1.0 were actually released.
Apparently according to the roadmap we're looking at early September which most shareholders will interpret as October or later. So still a while to wait.
Also CCEDK has very little volume/customers so although the announcements there were great, it's unlikely to drive a lot of business to BTS in the interim.
So you think rather than people being afraid, they are simply underwhelmed or see the coming events as too far in the future?
I personally decreased my position by circa a third when I realised BTS 2.0 would still be a while, thinking that I'll be able to buy back in closer to the date at a similar price without the interim risk and from Shentist's comment it looks like other people might have similar views. Also as I said with BTSX we also saw the price stay low until we were a lot closer to the BitAssets 1.0 release.
(CNX is a medium term concern too and negatively effects BTS value in some ways, however without CNX, the current BTS construct would have been worse off as it can't afford to pay for much development on it's own.)
-
This is great poll to start up and get some community feedback. But IMO #2 and #4 are one in the same, both questions boil down to Cryptonomex abandoning BTS and leaving it's holders out to dry.
With that in perspective, totaling both #2 & #4 is out numbering poll option #1 "the positive sentiment" of Crytonomex.
IMO it's seems more than half (at this point in time) of the community is afraid of the unknowns Re: Cyptonomex true intentions.
my two BTS :-\
-
This is great poll to start up and get some community feedback. But IMO #2 and #4 are one in the same, both questions boil down to Cryptonomex abandoning BTS and leaving it's holders out to dry.
With that in perspective, totaling both #2 & #4 is out numbering poll option #1 "the positive sentiment" of Crytonomex.
IMO it's seems more than half (at this point in time) of the community is afraid of the unknowns Re: Cyptonomex true intentions.
my two BTS :-\
True, #2 and 4 have fear, but differ in the degree of fear, or whether one thinks the upside outweighs the possible downside.
While most of us think this is a net positive, it does seem that at least half worry that at some point, our interests wont all be aligned.
Some more clarity on this would probably be helpful.
-
I think the question might be reframed as follows:
Given that we are unwilling (or perhaps don't know how) to fully fund the development ourselves, is what are the relative pros and cons of CNX as a solution?
My conditional view of this is that CNX is a short/medium term solution with benefits and risks, because either of the following two scenarios are likely to unfold:
i) bitShares price takes off, and the amount of funding available from dilution then becomes more than adequate to self-fund CNX to prioritise bitshares above all else, or
ii) bitShares price continues to languish for a meaningful period - either we become a less significant revenue stream for CNX compared to other growth areas of their business, or the developers walk away to other interests.
That's why I'd prefer for bitShares to have self-funding options, assuming that can be made possible. I'm open to other views though - they're just my concerns as they stand right now.
-
Cryptonomex was created to be the gravitational force that keeps the development team together.
Try turning that gravitational force off for a few months.
No, don't. :)
-
I think starspirit nails it.
In addition, all I have seen is dan and Stan (and by extension the other core devs) do everything they can to make Bitshares a success. I suspect they have used considerable amounts of their own capital to get the project this far.
Furthermore, CNX is leading the way towards what was always the end objective for further development of the network. This was a necessary step.
As long as development continues and genuine partnerships continue to be built, price in the short term is less important. I don't know how anyone can be underwhelmed by the incredibly positive news from ccedk and banx.
-
I am buying ever more since the announcement and will continue to do so every paycheck until launch. Gotta buy'em while they are cheap. I dont believe announcements have anything to do with the price. Only whales dumping and buying low.
-
I admit I expected a a rocketing takeoff of BTS after the announcement.. but the market cap didn't really move all that much.
I don't think what we see happening in market caps has anything to do with our announcements. It seems like all the markets are just being toyed with by whales/wallstreet.
As for Cryptonomex.. the move has actually given me more confidence in bitshares direction, because they have taken appropriate business measures to ensure its continuity, and to invite competition into BitShares development.
+5% for starting the discussion.
-
When I saw Doge rising faster than BTS over the last weeks I knew it was just some whale buying a whole bunch of alt currencies and nothing related to the announcement... The announcement was more like a proposal and a lot could be left up for interpretation. We still don't have a firm roadmap for when the testing will begin on devshares and if cryptonomex has received enough "community input" to do a feature freeze...
-
In addition, all I have seen is dan and Stan (and by extension the other core devs) do everything they can to make Bitshares a success. I suspect they have used considerable amounts of their own capital to get the project this far.
The economic interests are not aligned anymore.
Lets look at the worst case scenario: Graphene demonstrates it works great. Shareholders vote to pay CNX to make a couple more modules which also work well. Then CNX is hired by some corporate to use Graphene and those modules and are paid handsomely. CNX goes to work for them and for good measure sells off their shares before announcement.
So it boils down to how much you trust these guys.
-
In addition, all I have seen is dan and Stan (and by extension the other core devs) do everything they can to make Bitshares a success. I suspect they have used considerable amounts of their own capital to get the project this far.
The economic interests are not aligned anymore.
Lets look at the worst case scenario: Graphene demonstrates it works great. Shareholders vote to pay CNX to make a couple more modules which also work well. Then CNX is hired by some corporate to use Graphene and those modules and are paid handsomely. CNX goes to work for them and for good measure sells off their shares before announcement.
So it boils down to how much you trust these guys.
The economic interests are aligned.....the devs have a great deal to gain from Bitshares success. I don't agree with the idea that the devs have to work only for Bitshares. That's not to say I haven't shared some of the community's concerns.....but I have accepted the facts and continue to trust them.
Ultimately, even if your worst case scenario were to play out, it shouldn't matter. The Bitshares network will be alive, well and competitive. Once the network grows it will become truly autonomous which is where we need to be anyway. It is the Bitshares constitution/protocol/usability that hold the true value, not who is working for it.
-
Ultimately, even if your worst case scenario were to play out, it shouldn't matter. The Bitshares network will be alive, well and competitive. Once the network grows it will become truly autonomous which is where we need to be anyway. It is the Bitshares constitution/protocol/usability that hold the true value, not who is working for it.
+5% +5% +5%
Assuming CMX stay "committed" to bts for another year or so it shouldn't matter if they decide not to work for bts members anymore.
Worker proposals can hire new devs if need be, but I think a feature-freeze is a good idea. So I doubt we'll want to hire any new core-devs for a while.
Even if things go sour, members can vote to burn all dilution for a while.
DPOS 2.0 should launch with nearly all the killer features we need.
Let the referral system do all the work for a few years.
I trust them at least not to dump in such a way that tanks the price, but how they manage their private money is up to them.
I'm not even sure what "big company" could steal CMX away entirely from bts.
No centralized institution is going to be able to fill the boots of BitShares - why would CMX sell their shares and miss out on the bts revolution.
TL;DR There is a market niche for a global unbounded organization that efficiently adapts and morphs to the needs of the market and the desires of it's shareholders.
I believe BitShares is that organization.
Nobody/nothing else that I've seen can offer CMX the opportunity to benefit from filling this market niche. Why would they even dump their baby when it's got so much more growing up to do?
-
I remember when BM started the first thread related to the paid workers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16130.0.html
It's almost a two month old post, but it's clearly stated that the BTS the dev team will earn will be vested. So in order to be able to cash on their hard work Cryptonomex shareholders will have to stick to Bitshares for a while, at least until they can sell their vested Bitshares. It wouldn't be a wise move to leave the project with several millions vesting BTS.
Edit: This info should be enough to alleviate most of the concerns (it did for me), since in a few years from now the Bitshares project should be mostly autonomous and its survival and prosperity shouldn't be dependant on Cryptonomex.
-
I remember when BM started the first thread related to the paid workers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16130.0.html
It's almost a two month old post, but it's clearly stated that the BTS the dev team will earn will be vested. So in order to be able to cash on their hard work Cryptonomex shareholders will have to stick to Bitshares for a while, at least until they can sell their vested Bitshares. It wouldn't be a wise move to leave the project with several millions vesting BTS.
Edit: This info should be enough to alleviate most of the concerns (it did for me), since in a few years from now the Bitshares project should be mostly autonomous and its survival and prosperity shouldn't be dependant on Cryptonomex.
+5% Good point
When I saw Doge rising faster than BTS over the last weeks I knew it was just some whale buying a whole bunch of alt currencies and nothing related to the announcement... The announcement was more like a proposal and a lot could be left up for interpretation. We still don't have a firm roadmap for when the testing will begin on devshares and if cryptonomex has received enough "community input" to do a feature freeze...
I think the whale was speculating on Greek default/capital controls last week which should be great for BTC but even better for crypto-currencies like LTC, DGC, NXT etc. XRP, BTS, STR and MAID obviously not so much, hence why we were sidelined from that move imo.
-
I remember when BM started the first thread related to the paid workers.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16130.0.html
It's almost a two month old post, but it's clearly stated that the BTS the dev team will earn will be vested. So in order to be able to cash on their hard work Cryptonomex shareholders will have to stick to Bitshares for a while, at least until they can sell their vested Bitshares. It wouldn't be a wise move to leave the project with several millions vesting BTS.
Edit: This info should be enough to alleviate most of the concerns (it did for me), since in a few years from now the Bitshares project should be mostly autonomous and its survival and prosperity shouldn't be dependant on Cryptonomex.
+5% Good point
This makes the assumption that whoever wants Cyptonomex couldn't afford to buyout their investment in BTS and provide an adequate monetary incentive to walk away, plus the allure of building a new chain with some really innovative, cool new features, a definite temptation for many devs.
Don't say it isn't possible.
Is it probable? Who knows for sure. I don't think it is. I rate the integrity of BM and the dev team very highly for their dedication to first principles. They're not perfect, such as the weakened stance on privacy & anonymity (if it were strong they would be rolling out the 3-tiered solution BM has proposed [for a 2M BTS fee] with the launch of 2.0).
So although the vesting schedule is very important to retain Cryptonomex's interest in BTS, it's conceivable it could be bought out. How dedicated to BTS is Cryptonomex as a team based on the first principles BM continues to espouse, and how loyal to those principles and to BM are the investors and dev staff?
You need to decide that for yourself. I for one believe they are very loyal and highly motivated to the success of BitShares technology that will be disruptive to the corrupt financial institutions and break their monopoly, to empower millions if not billions of people to trade freely.
-
but even better for crypto-currencies like LTC, DGC, NXT etc. XRP, BTS, STR and MAID obviously not so much
What is the logic here?
-
This makes the assumption that whoever wants Cyptonomex couldn't afford to buyout their investment in BTS and provide an adequate monetary incentive to walk away, plus the allure of building a new chain with some really innovative, cool new features, a definite temptation for many devs.
Don't say it isn't possible.
Is it probable? Who knows for sure. I don't think it is. I rate the integrity of BM and the dev team very highly for their dedication to first principles. They're not perfect, such as the weakened stance on privacy & anonymity (if it were strong they would be rolling out the 3-tiered solution BM has proposed [for a 2M BTS fee] with the launch of 2.0).
So although the vesting schedule is very important to retain Cryptonomex's interest in BTS, it's conceivable it could be bought out. How dedicated to BTS is Cryptonomex as a team based on the first principles BM continues to espouse, and how loyal to those principles and to BM are the investors and dev staff?
You need to decide that for yourself. I for one believe they are very loyal and highly motivated to the success of BitShares technology that will be disruptive to the corrupt financial institutions and break their monopoly, to empower millions if not billions of people to trade freely.
I cannot say a buyout is impossible. Highly improbable, but not impossible. What I believe is more likely to happen is Cryptonomex will expand their dev team the day a big corporation wants to use its services to start a whole new blockchain using Graphene. But I highly doubt CNX will completely turn their back to Bitshares. The vesting shares will be one of the most important asset on CNX books. And even if a corporation wants to buy them out, why would that corporation want those vesting shares to lose a lot of value when CNX leaves the Bitshares project? Not a smart move either.
-
but even better for crypto-currencies like LTC, DGC, NXT etc. XRP, BTS, STR and MAID obviously not so much
What is the logic here?
ETH, XRP, BTS, MAID & STR are viewed more as platforms/companies so they will not benefit from a Greek default to the same degree crypto-currencies like BTC, LTC, DGC and NXT would imo. (Physical sales of gold and silver would also increase in such a scenario imo.)