BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 10:15:56 pm

Title: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 10:15:56 pm
I think this deserves its own thread so I'm reposting my feelings on the merger and re-org here.

I see a complete reversal of strategy happening on this forum and, frankly, it is frightening. Some of us have abandoned the “open platform” model of the Bitshares Toolkit in favor of protectionism and centralization. Bytemaster is a smart dude, but the assumption that any innovative idea must have his blessing and must consume his limited resource is just plain wrong. Why should we sink or swim on the basis of a single DAC? The original vision of the Bitshares Toolkit was collaborative and open. 3rd party developers would be encouraged to fork the toolkit and to innovate. Now it seems that we’ve reverted to the very model that Dan campaigned against in the Bitcoin space - that one chain would eventually rule them all. What is the price of all this protectionism? Even if it were true that individual DACs would indirectly compete in the marketplace, why do we assume that this is some sort of a “failure”?

I understand that Dan himself, as an individual, cannot work on competing alternatives. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not to position the Toolkit as an open platform for innovation by 3rd party DACs. When I hear people calling for an end to PTS and AGS, it signals to me that we’ve abandoned this vision. Dan doesn’t need to personally develop each DAC, but I think he can do certain things to keep the platform open and to incentivize development by third parties. For example:

* Keep and promote PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments for future DACs. (Thank you for the recent change of position on this.)
* Create a reasonable and voluntary divestment strategy for the Bitshares Trust to ensure that 3rd party DACs are incentivized to sharedrop for a fair and balanced distribution.
* Either contribute to, or promote the efforts of others who wish to separate the core DPOS code base from DAC-specific applications such as BTSX, DNS, and Vote. Separating the code base would go a long way towards incentivizing 3rd party development. Not only is this good practice from an engineering perspective, but it lowers the barrier to entry for the developer who has an idea for “the next great DAC”.

If a superior technology is built on the Toolkit, then as shareholders of AGS and PTS we would greatly benefit from it. Pushing 3rd party devs and DACs away from the platform will not prevent the existence of competing alternatives to BTS. More than likely, it will just ensure that those alternatives are built elsewhere and that we as a community do not benefit from them.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 10:18:35 pm
Those who are interested, let me know if you'd like to chat about this on the Mumble server.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: monsterer on October 30, 2014, 10:30:07 pm
I suggested an alternative course of action here, but it didn't get much attention:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10632.msg139815#msg139815
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: happybit on October 30, 2014, 11:12:34 pm
I totally agree with OP... not in the sense that it "matters" ... what I mean is, I'm looking at it from the (original) philosophical perspective where Dan was really convincing in his early pitch of Bitshares, and to have the project(s) be developed all in separate, competing DACs

and now it is going against it all... I guess others may still take his original ideas, and run with them... create Bitshares Classic as opposed to New Bitshares (yes, trying to make a Coke reference) :)

anyhow, I still think EVERYONE is trying to do the thing that is the best... and also starting to see that there is no way to predict where this project will end up... I'm sure it will be in a happy, bright place in the future!

Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: speedy on October 30, 2014, 11:26:47 pm
Bytemaster had good reasons for merging the DACs. No one is perfect and no one can totally plan ahead every last detail.

Can we please just move on? The rebranded & merged BitShares without the X even sounds simpler, and will be more appealing to new buyers who dont understand every minutia of BTS crypto-lore.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: starspirit on October 30, 2014, 11:29:22 pm
I'm starting to imagine that bitShares is actually evolving into an entire ecosystem with BTS being shares in the accumulated capital of that ecosystem. Ultimately independent and decentralised DACs could be implemented within the ecosystem with their own sets of stakeholders. This is like the thousands of corporations today that interact within the USD fiat system. And DACS could still be launched into external communities using the bitShares toolkit as an export. But they would compete with DACs within the bitShares ecosystem, just as there is global trade and competition today.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 11:46:04 pm
Bytemaster had good reasons for merging the DACs. No one is perfect and no one can totally plan ahead every last detail.

Can we please just move on? The rebranded & merged BitShares without the X even sounds simpler, and will be more appealing to new buyers who dont understand every minutia of BTS crypto-lore.

Merging multiple DACs is not contrary to the original vision of Bitshares. If it makes sense and if the shareholders agree then there wouldn't be a problem with merging Vote with BTSX, or even possibly DNS (though that seems like a tangent). Also, I've been arguing for a re-brand for a looooong time. Neither of these action is contrary to the original vision of an open Bitshares platform.

The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed) and the ongoing hostility towards even the mere existence of other chains built on the Toolkit. Even though the decision to eliminate PTS/AGS was reversed, there is still another sharedrop to PTS/AGS happening on November 5th which seems totally arbitrary. I argue that we should not re-sharedrop PTS and AGS and that we should support their continued existence as sharedrop instruments for 3rd party DACs. Furthermore, we should separate or support the efforts of others to separate the core Toolkit from the BTS repo to make it easier for 3rd parties to fork the toolkit and develop cool DACs.

Isolationism doesn't work and centralization doesn't work. Bitshares as a platform has far more potential than Bitshares as a swiss-army knife of features built into a single blockchain with a hostile and unwelcoming attitude towards alternative strategies. Would you rather own a single app or the entire operating system? Are we a spider or a starfish? We shouldn't be consolidating around a particular action or product decision (to merge or not to merge). Rather, we should consolidate around a set of core principles that define our mission and identity as a community.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: donkeypong on October 30, 2014, 11:48:45 pm
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: speedy on October 30, 2014, 11:50:01 pm
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

Im with donkey - lets all move on and embrace the bright future of BitShares.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: Pheonike on October 30, 2014, 11:50:37 pm
We can start big and divide later or start divided and combine later. 

It's either the Voltron model, fight as lions then combine at the end

or the

Agent Smith model, try to fight Neo one on one then split-off in multiple Smiths at the end.

Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: Ander on October 30, 2014, 11:51:35 pm
PTS/AGS are *not* being eliminated.

They will still exist, and 3rd party devs can still sharedrop to them. 

There are already plans for a new DPoS currency coin to be created by a group of PTS holders, following the social consensus of giving to PTS/AGS.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: wasthatawolf on October 30, 2014, 11:53:27 pm
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)

Really?  When was this reversed?
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 11:55:08 pm
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: carpet ride on October 30, 2014, 11:56:30 pm
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

Look, you're now a competitor.  Don't expect a pat on the back.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 30, 2014, 11:58:00 pm
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)

Really?  When was this reversed?

The decision was reversed, but with little explanation or clarity on the future of PTS/AGS. I've put forth a strategy that does nothing to hurt the merged BTS. If anything I am arguing that we can have a stake in both the operating system AND the coolest apps built on top of the OS.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: Ander on October 30, 2014, 11:58:35 pm
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed)

Really?  When was this reversed?

When the community didnt want PTS/AGS to be eliminated.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: speedy on October 30, 2014, 11:58:45 pm
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

Isnt it because we are kind of tired of the debate, and the community has basically agreed that the new course is for the best ?
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 30, 2014, 11:59:17 pm
The problem initially began with the proposal to "eliminate PTS/AGS" (though that has been reversed) and the ongoing hostility towards even the mere existence of other chains built on the Toolkit. Even though the decision to eliminate PTS/AGS was reversed, there is still another sharedrop to PTS/AGS happening on November 5th which seems totally arbitrary. I argue that we should not re-sharedrop PTS and AGS and that we should support their continued existence as sharedrop instruments for 3rd party DACs. Furthermore, we should separate or support the efforts of others to separate the core Toolkit from the BTS repo to make it easier for 3rd parties to fork the toolkit and develop cool DACs.

A lot of people donated money to AGS and speculated on PTS with the hope that the I3 team would be focusing their attention on multiple DACs. For good reasons we have all already dicussed, their attention (and their AGS funds) will now be directed to focusing initially on one DAC (BTS). AGS/PTS still exist for third-party developers. However, the change in focus is likely to considerably reduce the value of AGS/PTS because most people were betting on bytemaster and team to use the AGS funds to make the DACs successful. In order to be nice and fair, and more importantly to attract the AGS/PTS (and also DNS/Vote) holders to keep their wealth in BTS rather than dumping into competing forks, the 7/7/3/3/80 share drop was done.

The sharedrop is done to be fair because they will not be focusing their attention on these other DACs anymore. We want them to not be distracted with other DACs so they can focus their attention at making BTS the best it can possibly be. To demand they also spend considerable time and resources helping third party developers means the sharedrop is no longer fair. So third party developers are now mostly on their own. The code is open source and I am sure some of the devs are happy to help them out a little, but there should be no expectation of that from the community or third-party devs.


Isolationism doesn't work and centralization doesn't work. Bitshares as a platform has far more potential than Bitshares as a swiss-army knife of features built into a single blockchain with a hostile and unwelcoming attitude towards alternative strategies.

Free riding also doesn't work. Can we all come to a consensus that these third party DACs will be diluting by a fair amount to pay for the core technology development that they all share? How can we enforce that with separate DACs? I like the unified BTS because all BTS holders need to pay for the development/marketing that will benefit all BTS holders. Incentives are aligned. For this to work however, it means we need to have a strong enough network effect to squash any challenger that is daring to take a dominant position away from BTS by copying all of the features and advertising itself as a platform similar to BTS.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:10:25 am
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

Look, you're now a competitor.  Don't expect a pat on the back.

Gonzo - there is a difference between getting a pat on the back and a rational response. How in the world do you figure that a stripped feature-less PTS would compete with the feature-packed merged BTS??? It's like saying that Ferrari views the Honda Civic as a direct competitor. Ludicrous. And merging the DACs doesn't magically produce unity. If anything there is a lack of clarity on the vision of Bitshares and the role of the various products under the Bitshares umbrella. Merging the products with seemingly arbitrary decision-making results in uncertainty, fear, and a fractured community. We need a united strategy, we need to articulate that strategy clearly, and we need to explain how each of the moving parts supports that strategy. I've seen somewhat of a strategy conveyed, but it has been conceived haphazardly and conveyed poorly. The new strategy seems to be a radical departure from the original strategy of Bitshares, yet there is little in the form of explanation. Lastly, it is entirely unclear what the role of PTS and AGS play in the new strategy. First they are absorbed, then they live on. But still everyone secretly wants them to die. If there is anything we've learned from the experiments of Doge and Nxt, it's that properly executed strategy (Doge) can trump technology and that technical superiority means nothing without proper strategy (Nxt)
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:23:07 am
arhag - open source code is different from a development platform. It doesn't require significant resources, just proper messaging and a tiny bit of code reusability is sometimes enough. Dan and his team do not need to actively work on other DACs. I think they should support the platform as a diversity play and to ensure that better ideas are incubated within our ecosystem rather than outside of it.

Quote
Free riding also doesn't work. Can we all come to a consensus that these third party DACs will be diluting by a fair amount to pay for the core technology development that they all share? How can we enforce that with separate DACs? I like the unified BTS because all BTS holders need to pay for the development/marketing that will benefit all BTS holders. Incentives are aligned. For this to work however, it means we need to have a strong enough network effect to squash any challenger that is daring to take a dominant position away from BTS by copying all of the features and advertising itself as a platform similar to BTS.

Let's be realistic, no cryptocurrency in existence has EVER been displaced by a copycat. And what we're talking about here is not a copycat at all. PTS as a featureless DPOS coin does not have exchange, bitAssets, Vote, or DNS. How can anyone claim it is a "direct competitor" or a "threat" to BTS? I remember when the idea of open source software was conceived there was this amazing hostility and vitriol directed towards it. People laughed and ridiculed anyone who promoted the concept. History *has a way of repeating itself.

Why should we fear 3rd party devs if we have a vested interest in their success? They can only succeed if they offer a competitive advantage, and as a platform we would have a vested interest in their success anyways. Should we tell them to innovate elsewhere? Is that in our best interest as a community?

Edit:*

Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 12:27:40 am
The new strategy seems to be a radical departure from the original strategy of Bitshares, yet there is little in the form of explanation. Lastly, it is entirely unclear what the role of PTS and AGS play in the new strategy. First they are absorbed, then they live on. But still everyone secretly wants them to die.

I will not-at-all-secretly publicly state that I want AGS and PTS to die after the November 5.

The purpose for AGS and PTS has ended in my opinion. One purpose was to reward the people who donated the BTC/PTS funds that make I3's approximately 5% stake in BTS possible, which is to be used for developing the future of this ecosystem. The other purpose was to have strong community support. The sharedrop has changed these two purposes. It allows I3 to focus all of the funds in their possession to making BTS the best it can be (and we need every penny we can get to accomplish that vision). It also means that after the sharedrop, people who had their allegiance divided between BTSX, AGS, PTS, VOTE, DNS can now focus it all on just one system BTS. If it is true that nearly all of the support has been diverted away from those various assets and to BTS (which I believe it is since the sharedrop seemed pretty fair to me), then the support for AGS/PTS should have significantly dropped. Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?

It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 12:39:21 am
The new strategy seems to be a radical departure from the original strategy of Bitshares, yet there is little in the form of explanation. Lastly, it is entirely unclear what the role of PTS and AGS play in the new strategy. First they are absorbed, then they live on. But still everyone secretly wants them to die.

I will not-at-all-secretly publicly state that I want AGS and PTS to die after the November 5.

The purpose for AGS and PTS has ended in my opinion. One purpose was to reward the people who donated the BTC/PTS funds that make I3's approximately 5% stake in BTS possible, which is to be used for developing the future of this ecosystem. The other purpose was to have strong community support. The sharedrop has changed these two purposes. It allows I3 to focus all of the funds in their position to making BTS the best it can be (and we need every penny we can get to accomplish that vision). It also means that after the sharedrop, people who had their allegiance divided between BTSX, AGS, PTS, VOTE, DNS can now focus it all on just one system BTS. If it is true that nearly all of the support has been diverted away from those various assets and to BTS (which I believe it is since the sharedrop seemed pretty fair to me), than the support for AGS/PTS should have significantly dropped. Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?

It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.

This post is illustrative of the exact point I was making. You support the merger but differ in your opinion of the strategy (which is fine). But strategy matters and that is exactly why it is absolutely not a waste of time to discuss the issue. As to your point about sharedropping to PTS - there are two issues with this. The first issue is that any person who have a business strategy that competes with the business strategy of BTS would be insane to sharedrop to their competitor. For example, what if I want to create a different DNS DAC or a different Vote DAC? Would I sharedrop to my own competitor. The second issue is a tangent to the first. Any success, failure, strategy, or implementation that is implemented in BTS would taint its use as a sharedrop instrument. Anyone who disagrees even slightly with any aspect of the DAC would choose not to sharedrop to the DAC. PTS is business-agnostic and DAC-agnostic with a pure proof of work distribution. These properties are ideal for a sharedrop instrument and the open-platform model I have outlined above.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 01:02:54 am
This post is illustrative of the exact point I was making. You support the merger but differ in your opinion of the strategy (which is fine). But strategy matters and that is exactly why it is absolutely not a waste of time to discuss the issue. As to your point about sharedropping to PTS - there are two issues with this. The first issue is that any person who have a business strategy that competes with the business strategy of BTS would be insane to sharedrop to their competitor. For example, what if I want to create a different DNS DAC or a different Vote DAC? Would I sharedrop to my own competitor.

If there is a strong division (say 50/50) in the BTS community about how to move forward or on certain critical business decisions, then it makes a lot of sense to do a 100% snapshot of BTS. This would effectively split the DAC and let the various stakeholders move to a position they like. This would be done despite the fact that it weakens their network effect considerably (Metcalfe's law).

If there was a small minority disagreeing, it would not be worth it to split the DAC. Certainly any one of the dissenting minority voices could snapshot the DAC anyway, but since they were small the DAC would have a tiny market cap, tiny network effect, and be unlikely to be successful. It would also not make sense to bother sharedropping to all of BTS in that case, since they would be giving the holders who disagree with their strategy the ability to profit as they dump the new stake. So, in this case it would make more sense to create a new DAC that is allocated according to an ICO, and try to compete with the main chain despite the much smaller network effect. If they were smarter about these different decisions compared to the holders of the bigger chain, they might become successful. In fact, this is the same strategy BitShares is taking vs Bitcoin: why snapshot BTC holders when the vast majority of them don't even believe in the vision of DPOS and BitAssets and would thus just dump anyway?

The second issue is a tangent to the first. Any success, failure, strategy, or implementation that is implemented in BTS would taint its use as a sharedrop instrument. Anyone who disagrees even slightly with any aspect of the DAC would choose not to sharedrop to the DAC. PTS is business-agnostic and DAC-agnostic with a pure proof of work distribution. These properties are ideal for a sharedrop instrument and the open-platform model I have outlined above.

What do PTS holders stand for? What do I even know about them anyway? Why would they be strong hands for my particular DAC implementation? They might just dump the genesis stake anyway because they do not agree with the vision of my DAC. It makes no sense to sharedrop to a "business-agnostic" asset holder. If I am giving up network effect entirely, then I might as well ignore AGS/PTS entirely and just do an ICO that self-selects people who believe in the vision of my DAC.

Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 01:17:55 am
This post is illustrative of the exact point I was making. You support the merger but differ in your opinion of the strategy (which is fine). But strategy matters and that is exactly why it is absolutely not a waste of time to discuss the issue. As to your point about sharedropping to PTS - there are two issues with this. The first issue is that any person who have a business strategy that competes with the business strategy of BTS would be insane to sharedrop to their competitor. For example, what if I want to create a different DNS DAC or a different Vote DAC? Would I sharedrop to my own competitor.

If there is a strong division (say 50/50) in the BTS community about how to move forward or on certain critical business decisions, then it makes a lot of sense to do a 100% snapshot of BTS. This would effectively split the DAC and let the various stakeholders move to a position they like. This would be done despite the fact that it weakens their network effect considerably (Metcalfe's law).

If there was a small minority disagreeing, it would not be worth it to split the DAC. Certainly any one of the dissenting minority voices could snapshot the DAC anyway, but since they were small the DAC would have a tiny market cap, tiny network effect, and be unlikely to be successful. It would also not make sense to bother sharedropping to all of BTS in that case, since they would be giving the holders who disagree with their strategy the ability to profit as they dump the new stake. So, in this case it would make more sense to create a new DAC that is allocated according to an ICO, and try to compete with the main chain despite the much smaller network effect. If they were smarter about these different decisions compared to the holders of the bigger chain, they might become successful. In fact, this is the same strategy BitShares is taking vs Bitcoin: why snapshot BTC holders when the vast majority of them don't even believe in the vision of DPOS and BitAssets and would thus just dump anyway?

The second issue is a tangent to the first. Any success, failure, strategy, or implementation that is implemented in BTS would taint its use as a sharedrop instrument. Anyone who disagrees even slightly with any aspect of the DAC would choose not to sharedrop to the DAC. PTS is business-agnostic and DAC-agnostic with a pure proof of work distribution. These properties are ideal for a sharedrop instrument and the open-platform model I have outlined above.

What do PTS holders stand for? What do I even know about them anyway? Why would they be strong hands for my particular DAC implementation? They might just dump the genesis stake anyway because they do not agree with the vision of my DAC. It makes no sense to sharedrop to a "business-agnostic" asset holder. If I am giving up network effect entirely, then I might as well ignore AGS/PTS entirely and just do an ICO that self-selects people who believe in the vision of my DAC.

Proof of work distribution is the only provable and trustless form of distribution. This is one of the failings of Nxt. As for your other comments about the feasibility of competing alternatives, they may be factually correct but irrelevant to the current discussion. Rational minds with overlapping interests (this community) have a decent chance at converging upon a consensus with equal access to information. I don't believe we've exhausted the discussion yet, though I'm sure some will disagree.

Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: .yoshi on October 31, 2014, 01:20:20 am
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: sschechter on October 31, 2014, 01:27:20 am
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

 +5% +5%
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 01:27:34 am
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I3 can do the merger and not stray from the "open" strategy. I am merely saying that I3 should "bless" the open platform strategy and convey it clearly. I outlined some simple bullet points that would be sufficient for doing so.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 01:27:41 am
Proof of work distribution is the only provable and trustless form of distribution.

I suspected that you still believed in that fallacy but didn't want to call you out on it until I was sure.

An ICO where the funds donated remain locked until the crowdfunding is over is also provably fair distribution.

Trading ones stake for money on an open exchange is also provably fair distribution.

Creating new stake (inflation/dilution/capital infusion) and giving it to certain individuals that the stakeholders have come to a majority consensus about is also a distribution method that is transparent, provable, and I would even argue fair (although some may complain about the tyranny of the majority).


Regarding the ICO method, the BitShares AGS campaign had a slight flaw because the BTC/PTS received could have been recycled back into the ICO to dilute other people of their stake. But I don't think anyone actually believes that I3 did such a thing. Going forward it would be more ideal for the sake of transparency to have a well publicized ICO that has a much shorter period so that the organization receiving the money can wait until it is done before touching the funds.

Also, an ICO has far more benefits than POW for distribution. The money that was being spent on wasteful electricity and buying useless space heaters called ASICs is instead given to the people who can make the vision that people donated money for more likely to be successful.

Besides, your proposal to take PTS and put it on DPOS gets rid of POW distribution. So what, POW was a good form of distribution for a year, but now screw it, let's now lock in the stake and make it deflationary? By doing that aren't you admitting that trading stake for money is also a great and fair form of distribution of stake?

This is one of the failings of Nxt.

The criticism with NXT is that too few founding individuals got too high of a percentage of the initial stake (BTW I don't necessary agree or disagree with that criticism against NXT). That line of argument could potentially be valid since it is regarding the decentralization of decision making power for the DAC. I3 only has about 5% stake in BTS, which is too small to allow them to be dictators acting against the wishes of all other stakeholders.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: Thom on October 31, 2014, 01:30:22 am
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

Here, here! What he said ^
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: .yoshi on October 31, 2014, 01:59:06 am
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first

These two things are not mutually exclusive. I3 can do the merger and not stray from the "open" strategy. I am merely saying that I3 should "bless" the open platform strategy and convey it clearly. I outlined some simple bullet points that would be sufficient for doing so.

i totally agree, theyre not mutually exclusive. but i feel like i3 has completely embraced the open platform. sure they could do more, and i like your ideas, but have they changed course? absolutely not
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 02:03:59 am
Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.

I'll make these talented developers a few offers. They can either allocate the genesis stake 100% to PTS, OR 50% to PTS and 50% to AGS, OR 90% to BTS and 10% to themselves. Which do you think they are more likely to take?

If BTS has the greater network effect than PTS or AGS (which it is pretty much guaranteed to have) AND BTS holders are no more opposed to the developers' vision than PTS holders AND the developers own less than 10% of PTS/AGS (which I am fairly confident is true), the rational decision is to take the third offer.

So it all comes down to whether the BTS holders or PTS holders are more likely to dump the new DAC's stake. If the new DAC isn't competition against BTS, I see no reason why BTS holders would be more likely to dump than PTS holders. If it is competition, then you are basically saying people's purpose for holding PTS is to compete with BTS. The talented developers could certainly try to compete against BTS despite the much weaker network effect they inherit from PTS, but I would argue that if they are giving up strong network effect then they are more likely to realize their vision if they just do an ICO instead of snapshotting PTS. Or they might find that BTS holders are actually open to pay them (through BTS dilution) to realize their vision on the BitShares platform instead of competing with BTS.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: fuzzy on October 31, 2014, 02:09:02 am
Edit: Also you have somehow interpreted "3rd party developer" to mean only developers who have no vested stake in PTS/AGS. There are plenty of talented developers who are invested in PTS and AGS (I know many of them), and would be willing to try and build a new DAC if it were encouraged. If we position PTS properly we can gain a lot of traction from developers both inside and outside of our community.

I'll make these talented developers a few offers. They can either allocate the genesis stake 100% to PTS, OR 50% to PTS and 50% to AGS, OR 90% to BTS and 10% to themselves. Which do you think they are more likely to take?

If BTS has the greater network effect than PTS or AGS (which it is pretty much guaranteed to have) AND BTS holders are no more opposed to the developers' vision than PTS holders AND the developers own less than 10% of PTS/AGS (which I am fairly confident is true), the rational decision is to take the third offer.

So it all comes down to whether the BTS holders or PTS holders are more likely to dump the new DAC's stake. If the new DAC isn't competition against BTS, I see no reason why BTS holders would be more likely to dump than PTS holders. If it is competition, then you are basically saying people's purpose for holding PTS is to compete with BTS. The talented developers could certainly try to compete against BTS despite the much weaker network effect they inherit from PTS, but I would argue that if they are giving up strong network effect then they are more likely to realize their vision if they just do an ICO instead of snapshotting PTS. Or they might find that BTS holders are actually open to pay them (through BTS dilution) to realize their vision on the BitShares platform instead of competing with BTS.

I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?  Some "young" devs might even choose to work on specific forks of these single, basic chains and "merge" together (like voltron, pheonike) to make SuperDACs that compete with BTS and Ethereum. 

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.  I am ALL for diversification.  In fact, I hope someone will keep DNS chain alive and work on their own innovations with it.   
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: donkeypong on October 31, 2014, 02:33:34 am
Get over it, AB. This is beating a dead horse of a non-argument. Don't you have your own forum now?

This is exactly the type of shallow, non-productive response and attitude I was referring to in my post. Why don't you address the substance of my argument instead of being so dismissive? If anything what you've provided is the very definition of a "non-argument".

I've spent far too much time countering some of your "arguments" on a substantive level. This is probably the tenth post I've made in one of your threads over the last week or so. And yet you don't seem to get the fact that this community has moved past your efforts to divide. Once more: I support your efforts to resurrect PTS. But your divisive rhetoric is not welcome, yet you bring this up again and again. This could have been a team effort. Instead, it's going to be you and a couple of buddies. How good is the forum you created? Why aren't you having this debate on there instead of here? We've moved on. You clearly have not.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 02:34:30 am
I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?

Well, for one, funding would likely be a bigger issue on the smaller, less competitive DACs. They either need to have earned a huge amount of money from an ICO to fund all the development they need, which we are slowly moving away from in favor of the dilution model, or they would need the stake of their DAC to have a high enough market cap to fund development (either by selling off some of their initial genesis stake or even better getting paid with stakeholder approval through dilution of the stake). If the market cap of the DAC is puny it will be too difficult to generate high enough salaries to pay the developers.

If the developers are creating technology that can bring value to BTS stakeholders, then it would be smart for the BTS stakeholders to pay those developers through BTS dilution (which they can afford to do because of a much higher market cap) to create the technology and add that value to BTS.

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.

If the devs hasn't proved themselves yet, then people probably wouldn't donate to an ICO to allow the devs to carry out their vision. They would also likely dump the stake that the devs generated through snapshots because of lack of confidence in the devs. A dev first needs to prove himself/herself. If they have some background that would make BTS stakeholders think they can actually pull it off, they can appeal to stakeholders and get hired as a developer paid for by BTS dilution. As they start proving themselves they can get paid more to grow their team and accomplish their grander vision. If they don't even have enough credentials to get elected by stakeholders, then I guess they have to first build that reputation by contributing to the open source project for free.

If some devs have proven themselves (say through the above actions), they might have gained enough of a reputation to then launch their own competing DAC if they really wanted to take it along a different path. Ideally BitShares as a platform with Turing complete scripts would be flexible enough to allow them to accomplish their goals within the blockchain, but if for some reason their vision requires fundamental changes that are incompatible with BTS, then they have to launch their own chain. Their reputation can then allow them to get the necessary funding through an ICO, or if they don't want to deal with the legal issues with that, they could even snapshot BTS (and potentially other tokens) and still have enough strong hands who believe in their vision to not dump the genesis stake.

Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on October 31, 2014, 06:22:20 pm
I see the old single-dac-chains as potentially having innovations that get 3rd party Devs recognized by SuperDACs (like BTS/Ethereum).  Is there a flaw to my logic here?  Why wouldn't 3rd party Devs want to develop on those smaller, less competitive DACs?

Well, for one, funding would likely be a bigger issue on the smaller, less competitive DACs. They either need to have earned a huge amount of money from an ICO to fund all the development they need, which we are slowly moving away from in favor of the dilution model, or they would need the stake of their DAC to have a high enough market cap to fund development (either by selling off some of their initial genesis stake or even better getting paid with stakeholder approval through dilution of the stake). If the market cap of the DAC is puny it will be too difficult to generate high enough salaries to pay the developers.

If the developers are creating technology that can bring value to BTS stakeholders, then it would be smart for the BTS stakeholders to pay those developers through BTS dilution (which they can afford to do because of a much higher market cap) to create the technology and add that value to BTS.

In this way, it would essentially be a way to lower barrier to entry for talented Devs who have no other way of proving themselves to a broader community.

If the devs hasn't proved themselves yet, then people probably wouldn't donate to an ICO to allow the devs to carry out their vision. They would also likely dump the stake that the devs generated through snapshots because of lack of confidence in the devs. A dev first needs to prove himself/herself. If they have some background that would make BTS stakeholders think they can actually pull it off, they can appeal to stakeholders and get hired as a developer paid for by BTS dilution. As they start proving themselves they can get paid more to grow their team and accomplish their grander vision. If they don't even have enough credentials to get elected by stakeholders, then I guess they have to first build that reputation by contributing to the open source project for free.

If some devs have proven themselves (say through the above actions), they might have gained enough of a reputation to then launch their own competing DAC if they really wanted to take it along a different path. Ideally BitShares as a platform with Turing complete scripts would be flexible enough to allow them to accomplish their goals within the blockchain, but if for some reason their vision requires fundamental changes that are incompatible with BTS, then they have to launch their own chain. Their reputation can then allow them to get the necessary funding through an ICO, or if they don't want to deal with the legal issues with that, they could even snapshot BTS (and potentially other tokens) and still have enough strong hands who believe in their vision to not dump the genesis stake.

Your main points are again about not being able to secure funding and about technical superiority (my devs are smarter than your devs). I'm afraid your trapped in the paradigm of the "profitable DAC", which is not applicable in every situation. Doge did not ascend to the place it currently holds with any development or funding. If I say "no crypto can possibly succeed without fulfilling requirements A and B" and there is an existing crypto that is literally the polar opposite of requirements A and B, then I need to take a step back and think about what I am saying.

The requirements you've outlined are fine, and they may lead to a wildly successful DAC that meets a particular need or fulfills a particular application nicely. The problem I have is that you've closed your mind to the possibility that alternative business models exist and that you lose nothing by stopping this pointless battle against openness, competition, and diversity. Let me distill it for you again:

You believe:
1) PoW distribution is not the best method of allocation.
2) A DAC cannot succeed without a solid funding model.
3) A DAC cannot succeed without strong developers and technical superiority.

I believe:
1) Without diverging from the topic, most people in the crypto space disagree with you on point #1.
2) A good currency and sharedropping coin CAN succeed without technical superiority.
3) The most important attributes of this coin are: (i) fair distribution, (ii) strong scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency and secuirty (DPOS).

Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: Pheonike on October 31, 2014, 06:30:20 pm

Quote
You believe:
1) PoW distribution is not the best method of allocation.
2) A DAC cannot succeed without a solid funding model.
3) A DAC cannot succeed without strong developers and technical superiority.

I believe:
1) Without diverging from the topic, most people in the crypto space disagree with you on point #1.
2) A good currency and sharedropping coin CAN succeed without technical superiority.
3) The most important attributes of this coin are: (i) fair distribution, (ii) strong scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency and secuirty (DPOS).

Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...


If we based what we do on what most ppl in Crypto as a whole believe, BitShares would not exist.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: bytemaster on October 31, 2014, 06:35:19 pm
We haven't really changed directions:

1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful:  Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

So all that has happened is that I demanded a unified project to work on and the options were: create a competitor to BTSX or adapt BTSX.   This was entirely within the realm of the original planning. 

So I fully support your efforts on Launching your own PTS currency based upon your core tenants.   No need to fight any one.  Just go and do it.

In summary we haven't changed course, but all things are a matter of perspective and from some perspectives the course may have changed.   I would say the primary course correct was to "grow and then divide" rather than "divide and then grow".... and course correction was not optional, the original plan was unsustainable.




Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 06:36:33 pm
Our views mostly differ on our marketing and business strategy. Both may work within a given niche or application. The difference is that I'm not railing against your idea saying that it will never work. Even worse, you have literally nothing to lose but everything to gain if I am right. Just a shame...

I have expressed my views on why I don't think the approach you have outlined is a good one to achieve success. And I don't consider Doge a success. The only cryptoasset that can even be considered close to a success at this point is BTC, and I expect (or at least hope) that will change thanks to BTS.

That said, I am not against anyone trying different approaches and creating other DACs. I don't think the approach you outlined is a recipe for success but who knows, I could be wrong. My main concern is to not fragment the community and thus reduce the network effect of BTS. This is why I have bothered to even share my opinions on the strategy you have proposed despite the fact that I think it is flawed. I have explained why I think it is flawed and why I think it is a waste of our network effect for people in this community to distract themselves with such effort. My hope is that people will see the reasoning behind my arguments and be convinced. If they are not, then so be it.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: arhag on October 31, 2014, 06:44:32 pm
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: cass on October 31, 2014, 06:59:29 pm
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.

 +5% yup indeed .. noticed this also last 3 weeks... i'll focus totally on BTS now... when i got time to...i'll help other DACs as well :)!
I've changed my priority list...
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: oldman on October 31, 2014, 10:39:28 pm
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

 +5% This is key. This is what I care about. Every working hour devs paid by BTS spend helping other third-party DACs is an hour that isn't spent doing the million things on the list for this ambitious project we call BitShares.

 +5% yup indeed .. noticed this also last 3 weeks... i'll focus totally on BTS now... when i got time to...i'll help other DACs as well :)!
I've changed my priority list...

If there's one thing shareholders should be paying attention to, it's this.

To those dumping BTSX.... oops.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: gamey on October 31, 2014, 11:33:54 pm
Why would a third-party DAC want to credit AGS/PTS now if they do not get support using I3's funds anymore and they also do not sharedrop to strong hands who won't dump their stake when the market opens up?

It makes far more sense for the third-party developers to instead sharedrop to asset that there is a lot of support around (BTS). I also think it is preferable that they do some crowdfunding (despite possible SEC risks) to both raise capital and get self-selected strong hands in the genesis block, similar to what BitShares Music is doing with their Note pre-sale.

I agree with others that this is a dead horse but this thinking is backwards too.  BTS holders interests are aligned against that of AGS/PTS holders.  PTS/AGS holders specifically want to support new third party DACs.  BTS people will likely just dump of shares of a third party DAC.  I've never heard the case for why people would want to drop to BTS that makes sense except it happens to be there and is the basis of the toolkit.
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: alphaBar on November 01, 2014, 12:49:02 am
We haven't really changed directions:

1) I still believe in competing DACs and lowering the barrier to entry.
2) I still believe that 3rd party developers should recognize those who built the software they are using as a foundation.
3) I still believe in the company metaphor for economic development.
4) I still believe in NO CONTRACTS and NO OBLIGATIONS on any party (us or 3rd party developers)
5) I still believe that all DA(CCCCC) metaphors apply and are useful:  Currency, Company, Co-Op, Community, Country
6) I still support 3rd party DACs as being good, just so long as I don't have to spend more than an hour or so per week helping them.

So all that has happened is that I demanded a unified project to work on and the options were: create a competitor to BTSX or adapt BTSX.   This was entirely within the realm of the original planning. 

So I fully support your efforts on Launching your own PTS currency based upon your core tenants.   No need to fight any one.  Just go and do it.

In summary we haven't changed course, but all things are a matter of perspective and from some perspectives the course may have changed.   I would say the primary course correct was to "grow and then divide" rather than "divide and then grow".... and course correction was not optional, the original plan was unsustainable.

Dan, I totally understand your position. Can you clarify the following:

1) Are you willing to accept the divestiture strategy I proposed for the Bitshares Trust PTS Angel fund (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10701.0)? For many who are working on the PTS upgrade project, this is of paramount importance.

2) You've already stated that PTS/AGS will live on (after the merger), but can you confirm that it is I3's position that the social contract should also continue to be honored by future DACs (10+%PTS/10+%AGS)?
Title: Re: Bitshares identity crisis - have we changed course?
Post by: amencon on November 01, 2014, 02:33:33 pm
hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first
I understood it differently.  My take was that there would be independent teams building features for their DAC project but that many of those features after being tested in production would likely find their way back to the toolkit, thereby making it a stronger code base.  Multiple independent teams making their own leaps and innovations, the best of which could be communicated to the other teams and the toolkit itself.

Not only that but with multiple DACs you could essentially do better A/B testing of features.  Let's say dilution works great in a couple different DACs, well maybe it's determined to be added to the toolkit.  What if the few that utilize it crash and burn?  Well at least you have a diverse ecosystem that can assimilate that information and be stronger for it as well.

It may very well be that the merger will help the toolkit grow faster and stronger than it would have under the old paradigm though.  Time will tell.