Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
“I think what people are worried about is that you won't stop here. Once you have erased a hard line you put in place (no dilution), how can the random investor know which other lines will be preserved? The uncertainty is hurting the community, and we are not without competition.”
On a side note it is probably what separates Apple vs Android users. Apple users perhaps are driven by feelings more so than Android users. Android users are driven more by features, specs, hardware. Driven more by logic than emotions.
I've had random Apple fanboys start getting all worked up when I talk about my new android phone... like they are unnaturally threatened. Quite funny really.
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.
For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.
How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.
This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/
I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.
If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.
I'm thinking it would be useful to allow delegates to edit their own sections. Maintaining this would be a lot of work for one person. Would a wiki format work?
I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere but is there a website we can go to where we can view what it is that each of the 101 delegates are doing to help the DAC grow?
I think it would be a good idea if delegates had their own dedicated website where they talk about what it is they are going to do and WHY they should be delegates. Also, it might be a good idea if delegates post the metrics to be used to measure their performance. I think saying that you can't really measure performance is unacceptable.
This would be great. Delegates deserve something more than the forum. The site also could have a place where propositions (for voting) could be explained. Not to seem too much like a referendum election, but we could even file pro/con arguments if needed.
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.
For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.
It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.
Words playing on connotation found so far:
crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...
This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.
I'm saying two things. First everybody wants to become the next Apple or Steve Jobs, but that doesn't mean you will, so I think you should plan for the long difficult road instead of counting on becoming a rock-star overnight.
Second, I do not want to help create a second Apple at all. I do not like anything Apple stands for it is the complete opposite that we hope to achieve here. What philosophy of Apple with their patent trolling, walled garden, monopolistic tactics and gatekeeper ridden appstore held together by their Reality Distortion Field marketing is in any way, shape or form exemplary for bitshares?
Something people here need to understand: a powerful, emotional message and product utility are not binary options. You need an emotional message to get the attention of average people. Once you've got their attention, impress them with awesome utility.
Bytemaster: Read Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers by Geoffrey A. Moore <-- Written over 20 years ago, it's just as relevant today as it was then. I cannot recommend this book enough.
There is a big difference between emotion and ideology.
Back in the day, the telephone company used to encourage people to use the phone by reminding them to "reach out and touch someone", while showing images that remind people of their families. Family connections emotional, not ideological. Selling emotions is frigging easy. But selling ideology? That takes $100s of billions in political campaign spending and half the time you will lose to your ideological rival.
Ideology is a marketing loser if your goal is wide adoption.
