-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"
I hate it when that happens!
:)
-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"
I hate it when that happens!
:)
Obviously you don't take this seriously. But let me give you another example from my personal; experience.
I liked the idea of earning interest on BitAssets and thought much more could be done to market this. I started writing articles, published a couple, and was preparing a marketing site focussed especially on BitGold. Before I could actually do anything the rules of the game changed and interest was removed.
Wasting my time may not be a big deal, but it is indicative and I'm sure I'm not alone in this kind of experience.
You can't have a decentralized business if you keep changing fundamentals. Yes, you may be able to keep coming up with changes that will somehow improve things, but if you do then you will always be still at ground zero with a new product, nothing built around it, and few users / supporters / workers do anything useful.
-
everyone is free to issue an asset and to sharedrop on whatever they like.
-
everyone is free to issue an asset and to sharedrop on whatever they like.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"
I hate it when that happens!
:)
Obviously you don't take this seriously. But let me give you another example from my personal; experience.
I liked the idea of earning interest on BitAssets and thought much more could be done to market this. I started writing articles, published a couple, and was preparing a marketing site focussed especially on BitGold. Before I could actually do anything the rules of the game changed and interest was removed.
Wasting my time may not be a big deal, but it is indicative and I'm sure I'm not alone in this kind of experience.
You can't have a decentralized business if you keep changing fundamentals. Yes, you may be able to keep coming up with changes that will somehow improve things, but if you do then you will always be still at ground zero with a new product, nothing built around it, and few users / supporters / workers do anything useful.
We take this very seriously. We learn, adapt, improve, ... compete.
Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? It was not made on a whim.
Lessons Learned that led to BitShares 2.0 (https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/)
-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Yep. Every single day we get up and think, "How can we add to the ecosystem value proposition?"
I hate it when that happens!
:)
This is the exact mentality that caused me to slowly pull out my major holdings in BTS/whatever assets.
profitofthegods, brings up a very valid point that changing the "rules of the game" can be very eroding on the morale of businesses and investors alike.
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
And responding to such a serious and well thought out point, in an attempt to be pithy, is simply childish.
-
We take this very seriously. We learn, adapt, improve, ... compete.
Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? It was not made on a whim.
I am quite sure that you didn't do it on a whim. I'm not saying that. But the changes - in terms of the value a person gains from various actions (buying pts, ags, or bts promoting Bitshares, or trying to build an allied business), as well as the core way that Bitshares is structured and its features have been subject to near constant changes from the start. My point is that when making such changes so often, regardless of how positive and well thought out those changes are, you make it very difficult for newcomers to get to grips with how to get involved, and potentially burn people who are already involved and trying to do something.
What's more this brownie point thing in particular is just another way of drawing value from the decentralized Bitshares to Cryptonomex. It feels like yet another example of what seems to be a general disregard for people who have actually bought into this thing in some way - either financially or with time and effort.
-
the number one rule of this game is called :
freedom to issue your oun social currency or UIA and create as much value for it as u can dream
toi tell another man what they are not allowed to do is not cool
BM is free to do what he wants here. so am i. so are you.
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
-
Identabit wanted to sharedrop in two ways ; bts and valued members.
They chose brownies points because they are a good way to accomplish that. If BM wouldn't have created them, they would have sharedrop on who has the more threads or comments on this forum or ask for a list of members attending hangouts or something else. Brownies points are a much better way to accomplish that than these other solutions.
BitShares didn't change a bit when BM issued his brownies points, it just became a more innovative and stimulating environment ... if that's even possible !
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
-
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
Bts is an entrepreneurial venture of unprecedented kind. I completely understand why there is evolving change as things unfold. It's not like we're funding a lemonade stand. We're writing history.
Yes, it has been frustrating in the short-term. But this is a marathon through uncharted territory. And I have only seen proof that the Bts team will work as long and hard as it takes to make this project a success.
Brownie Points: I have zero, but understand that the people working proactively deserve a “token” of appreciation. This token is now a share-drop target. I am not surprised, nor am I complaining.
There is more than one reason to join Bts. I joined is because this group is more technically and philosophically advanced than any other.
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
They claimed that it still meets the social consensus if its 20% of initial supply.
However, if someone were to create a coin with an initial supply of like, 100 coins, giving 20 of the 100 coins to BTS holders, and then a final supply of 100 billion coins, with 99.99999 billion of those coins created through mining, dev bonuses, or whatever, then it becomes incredibly clear that that does NOT actually meet the social consensus.
In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.
I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
-
I understand where profitofthegods is coming from. Having patience and holding BitShares through all these bottomless cliff losses is already painful enough, now we have speculate on a new token that was spawned out of the air because the value of our BTS holdings (as a sharedrop target) is getting further diluted.
-
It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.
I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
The Brownie allocation is actually 20% of initial supply being awarded to Bytemaster.
It is completely under his control and as was stated when the sharedrop was announced...
Note brownies are subject to dilution at will and supplies can change.
- 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the originators and Stan & Dan are 2 of the 4 originators.
- 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the IDentabit developers and presumably BM is the largest recipient in that group.
- 20% goes to BTS of which BM is hopefully the largest holder.
I think that's fine but between CNX which owns Graphene and IDentabit, BTS is the project they may have the least incentive to make a long term success.
I'm currently holding a lot of BTS and have held much more in the past, but I'm certainly on my toes about whether it's the right thing to be doing.
-
It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.
This is not a zero sum game. There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist. They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
They claimed that it still meets the social consensus if its 20% of initial supply.
However, if someone were to create a coin with an initial supply of like, 100 coins, giving 20 of the 100 coins to BTS holders, and then a final supply of 100 billion coins, with 99.99999 billion of those coins created through mining, dev bonuses, or whatever, then it becomes incredibly clear that that does NOT actually meet the social consensus.
In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.
I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
Yes that wild hypothetical situation would not meet the social consesus. Now imagine another hypothetical. New coin launches gives 20% of initial supply to bts, and then slowly mines until a cap of 200% of initial supply is met over several years. Which of these is closest to reality? Would you really still insist on 40% of initial supply?
I just noticed that Brownie points are now a sharedrop target and might be given other benefits. This is not really a big deal on its own, but it points to something which I think is very important. Every other week the rules of the game change around here, or perhaps to put it more accurately the nature of the value proposition changes. It has been happening constantly, and it is very annoying and off-putting.
You can't build a castle on shifting sands.
If Bitshares wants to draw people in and get people involved and encourage people to build on it, then the one single most important thing those people need is to have some confidence that they won't have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the powers that be.
Personally I would have no confidence in building anything to do with Bitshares, because by the time it was completed things would have changed so much it would probably be unprofitable or impossible.
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
You have a really good point. Innovation is great, but the community needs stability in order to be able to build atop bitshares. I am hoping that 2.0 and committee members will give us that stability. I totally understand if people have lost faith with all the changes to date though.
-
Yes that wild hypothetical situation would not meet the social consesus. Now imagine another hypothetical. New coin launches gives 20% of initial supply to bts, and then slowly mines until a cap of 200% of initial supply is met over several years. Which of these is closest to reality? Would you really still insist on 40% of initial supply?
Maybe I wouldnt insist on 40%, but I would recognize the economic truth that the 20% initial/10% final sharedrop that was being given to BTS in that case is adding a lot less value to BTS than it would if it were 20% of final supply.
When the Identabit announcement mentioned '40% to BTS community', some investors probably thought that actually meant 40% to BTS. But this was clearly a bait and switch, because the reality is that common BTS holders actually get only 10% of the true supply. Brownie holders get another 10% of the final supply.
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
In my mind it only half meets the social consensus by being 10% of final supply. If you also hold brownies at least in proportion to your BTS stake then you are fine and get your 20%. However, everyone out there without brownies is missing out.
I believe that this is the cause of the most recent BTS decline. The price was at .033 and rising when this news came out, and its been nonstop downward spiral since. Everyone who was buying BTS as a sharedrop target just realized that they get only half what they expected because half the sharedrops are being throw at brownie now, and so they bailed.
The Brownie allocation is actually 20% of initial supply being awarded to Bytemaster.
It is completely under his control and as was stated when the sharedrop was announced...
Note brownies are subject to dilution at will and supplies can change.
- 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the originators and Stan & Dan are 2 of the 4 originators.
- 10% of the IDentabit supply goes to the IDentabit developers and presumably BM is the largest recipient in that group.
- 20% goes to BTS of which BM is hopefully the largest holder.
I think that's fine but between CNX which owns Graphene and IDentabit, BTS is the project they may have the least incentive to make a long term success.
I'm currently holding a lot of BTS and have held much more in the past, but I'm certainly on my toes about whether it's the right thing to be doing.
+5%
Hedge appropriately then.
-
My own opinion is flexibility is most important under conditions of uncertainty. You need the ability to make quick changes as you learn about the environment.
Bitshares is an experiment, whether it's 1.0 or 2.0. There have been several controversial decisions such as the merger, or even AGS. The simple fact is that Bytemaster doesn't owe us anything and Cryptonomex is their company. The Brownie Points apply to what Bytemaster and their team are doing.
But why complain about it? If you think there should be new rules, issue a token, and start a new game. There is no reason to believe only one game can be played at a time and that we can't play multiple games in parallel. We also don't want to be like Bitcoin where we can't change the rules and become obsolete.
My suggestion, transition into a gift economy. Let Bytemaster be the leader who makes the first move with Brownie Points, but there is no rule which says there can only be Brownie Points, or that developers can only sharedrop on Brownie Points exclusively. This means you can get Bytemaster's development support by sharedropping on his people, but you can also sharedrop on your own people or on any tokens you want.
If Bytemaster is the man who brought the Identabit deal together, then on the basis of him setting the deal up he has a lot of influence over it and can have Brownie Points. There are plenty of other deals which can be set up in the future and if you set a deal up you can have the sharedrop in whatever pattern you think would be best.
Compared to how the Bitcoin community is, I don't see what there is to complain about. Most people here probably will make money regardless of Brownie Points.
-
Yes, progress is good. Yes, change is tough. But completely changing the monetary incentive to use a system to a new one that does not favor new investment is a scary proposition.
what changed? 20% goes to BTS if you are referring to the identabit sharedrop
The 20% is a lie. Its only 10%, of final supply. They are doing 20% of initial distribution but only 10% in reality, to make it look better.
Any comment on this Stan?
The complete distribution table has been there for all to see from the beginning, so the fact that ordinary BitShares holders get 20% of the initial supply has been plain from Day 1. Hard to find a lie in there.
I have already explained the logic a week ago...
Question mentioned on Mumble that didn't get answered:
Paraphrasing..."Don't chains that sharedrop 20% and then dilute violate the Social Consensus?"
Answer: No violation. After you get your full 20% then you have to decide whether to cash it out or let it ride.
If you let it ride you are freely deciding that your are OK with the expected growth vs. the expected dilution.
So what happens after genesis is in your control, and you shouldn't expect a developer to take that into account for you.
In the case of Identabit's Proof of Appreciation guarantees that no dilution will occur at all for a while until the algorithm has validated that offsetting appreciation has occurred.
So the worry about what the supply will be at some distant point in the future is unknowable and moot.
You start out sharing 20% and have plenty of time to decide your own fate (and opt out if you want) before any change in the supply ever happens.
As for attempts to compare Brownies to BTS based on somebody's subjective evaluation of relative asset value, that's not how sharedrop theory works. Brownies are just a weighted list of appreciated active contributors that BM maintains for his own purposes. Its value is a function of the likelihood that being on that list will be somehow a Good Thing. BM has explicitly made no such promises to that effect.
BTS holders and Brownie holders were simply two different demographics that John Underwood wanted to honor. Surely you can understand why he would want to get active contributing members to be especially enthusiastic about his new project.
To win this argument you would need to convince John that taking the shares he wants to hand out as a gift to active ecosystem players away from them and instead giving them to less active members would add value to BitShares or Identabit.
-
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.
-
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.
Indeed. Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt. Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that. If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.
-
Wasting my time may not be a big deal, but it is indicative and I'm sure I'm not alone in this kind of experience.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15977.msg204711.html#msg204711 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15977.msg204711.html#msg204711) ;)
-
We take this very seriously. We learn, adapt, improve, ... compete.
Have you read the reasoning behind the decision? It was not made on a whim.
I am quite sure that you didn't do it on a whim. I'm not saying that. But the changes - in terms of the value a person gains from various actions (buying pts, ags, or bts promoting Bitshares, or trying to build an allied business), as well as the core way that Bitshares is structured and its features have been subject to near constant changes from the start. My point is that when making such changes so often, regardless of how positive and well thought out those changes are, you make it very difficult for newcomers to get to grips with how to get involved, and potentially burn people who are already involved and trying to do something.
What's more this brownie point thing in particular is just another way of drawing value from the decentralized Bitshares to Cryptonomex. It feels like yet another example of what seems to be a general disregard for people who have actually bought into this thing in some way - either financially or with time and effort.
Just the opposite.
BitShares Sharedrop Theory has been well defined in many posts since I first introduced it more than a year ago. It's always been up to each developer to pick the demographics that work best for their coins. We try to encourage them to honor BTS with 20% of initial stake by making that a factor in whether they get a license, but in the end all developers will do what they feel best meets their objectives.
Your preferred critieria, "people who have actually bought into this thing in some way - either financially or with time and effort," is met explicitly in the two choices John Underwood made:
"financially" (via BitShares) or "with time and effort" (via Brownies).
Cryptonomex gets no special benefit from John's decision to double the minimum amount of initial stake the community gets and targeting it precisely the way you seem to be advocating.
The decision about interest on bitAssets took place over an extended period of discussion and community feedback this spring and everyone had plenty of notice about the issues. All of the lessons learned are bundled into just one major upgrade in the switch to version 2.0. Seems about right for a highly competitive industry and a development team well known for its fast-break offense.
And we continue to add tools to allow developers to build their own user issued assets to support their own business models. This whole summer has been about giving associated businesses lots of advance warning about where the developers are going. The 30 day countdown is to allow time for integration and testing so that everyone can step off in lockstep at 2.0 launch.
-
Without change that results from innovation, Bitshares would already be worthless. It is revolutionary experimental software on the bleeding edge of network technology. Honestly, what do you expect?
The constant fretting about sharesdrops and 'value proposition' is pretty ugly. Developers must do what is best for their project. Anyone can create an asset in Bitshares. Bitshares has enormous potential value irrespective of a future gift.
-
Without change that results from innovation, Bitshares would already be worthless. It is revolutionary experimental software on the bleeding edge of network technology. Honestly, what do you expect?
The constant fretting about sharesdrops and 'value proposition' is pretty ugly. Developers must do what is best for their project. Anyone can create an asset in Bitshares. Bitshares has enormous potential value irrespective of a future gift.
Indeed. Sharedrops are not a real factor in my continuing to hold BTS. Sharedrops will buy my attention though; when I'm seriously sharedropped on I will take the time to see if I think the new project deserves my support. That's the point of sharedrops.
-
Bts is an entrepreneurial venture of unprecedented kind. I completely understand why there is evolving change as things unfold. It's not like we're funding a lemonade stand. We're writing history.
Yes, it has been frustrating in the short-term. But this is a marathon through uncharted territory. And I have only seen proof that the Bts team will work as long and hard as it takes to make this project a success.
+5% +5%
-
...
I joined is because this group is more technically and philosophically advanced than any other.
Same +5%
-
(http://www.quotationof.com/images/change-quotes-5.jpg)
-
BTS was DEAD when BM announced the merge.
-
BTS was DEAD when BM announced the merge.
Bad news ::)
-
Haha, guys, this is really kindergarden. BitShares is an emerging (decentralised) market with flaws, fires, problems everywhere, etc. If you can do it better, do it yourself and fork it :-) Competition is always useful and highly appreciated! BM and CNX are players/developers like you (should be). If you speculate on something brand-new, don't blame the others. Get active and contribute :-) Spread the word, help beta testing, fork everything if you like to, and design markets and tools for real people.
-
Competition is always useful and highly appreciated! BM and CNX are players/developers like you (should be). If you speculate on something brand-new, don't blame the others. Get active and contribute :-) Spread the word, help beta testing, fork everything if you like to, and design markets and tools for real people.
well said …
-
These is not competition just fraud. First PTS, then AGS, BTSX, Delegates, now Brownie. Who Know what is next. As a post 2/28 investor I still collecting PTS dust. In development of these beautiful technology (fraud) I invested a lot. Result: few PTS. I even didn't received all BTS I need to wait December or something. Thank you. Now Borownie.Points is more valuable than AGS. Brilliant way for stealing.
-
These is not competition just fraud. First PTS, then AGS, BTSX, Delegates, now Brownie. Who Know what is next. As a post 2/28 investor I still collecting PTS dust. In development of these beautiful technology (fraud) I invested a lot. Result: few PTS. I even didn't received all BTS I need to wait December or something. Thank you. Now Borownie.Points is more valuable than AGS. Brilliant way for stealing.
Again: AGS has ZERO value because it cannot be traded!
instead of spreading your FUD how about learning about an instrument BEFORE using it!
-
Bts is an entrepreneurial venture of unprecedented kind. I completely understand why there is evolving change as things unfold. It's not like we're funding a lemonade stand. We're writing history.
Yes, it has been frustrating in the short-term. But this is a marathon through uncharted territory. And I have only seen proof that the Bts team will work as long and hard as it takes to make this project a success.
+5% +5%
This!
-
(http://www.quotationof.com/images/change-quotes-5.jpg)
+5%
-
However, with the advent of AngelShares we have a new obligation to do all we can to motivate 3rd Parties to honor those who built the ecosystem they are enjoying. Our promise to promote, support and endorse only those 3rd Party DACs that honor our stakeholder's contributions is an important benefit that 3rd Party developer's get for honoring the Social Consensus. To dilute that for future DACs would be counterproductive and contrary to the expanded Social Consensus developed in December. This is being codified further in the Social Consensus Software License (SCSL) bounty.
-
These is not competition just fraud. First PTS, then AGS, BTSX, Delegates, now Brownie. Who Know what is next. As a post 2/28 investor I still collecting PTS dust. In development of these beautiful technology (fraud) I invested a lot. Result: few PTS. I even didn't received all BTS I need to wait December or something. Thank you. Now Borownie.Points is more valuable than AGS. Brilliant way for stealing.
It sucks you feel this way. I am not even sure how many brownies points I have to be honest with you. I try not to look because I'd prefer to just keep trying to expand bitshares' and the dev teams reach. At first I was concerned about the CNX thing potentially creating a conflict of interest but I actually think Dan's idea about brownies helped to solve that. The only problem right now is that there seem to be few ways for anyone to get some other than going on a thread and posting what you believe you have done of value for bitshares (knowing you are going to be biased toward your own pockets, naturally).
But in all honesty, believe Dan and the rest of the team ever intended to "steal" anything. In fact, Bm actually gave a far larger sharedrop of the first BTS than was expected by social consensus...setting the precedent for others (Muse, PLAY, and DNS) to sharedrop above social consensus. That is one example.
I think the REAL discussion we should be having is whether there should be other ways of getting brownie points that everyone from the community feels is within reach.
For instance, imagine if we had "social media quests" where providing a screenshot along with a link of yourself sharing content/projects from the bitshares community gives you a max of 5 brownies per day?
This way people feel like there is always a way to earn some. Then you have an investment token and a token that can be easily attained with lthe accomplishment of various tasks.
*full disclosure: I also donated most of my btc after the 28th :/
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
+5%
That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing is disappointment.
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
+5%
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Directly to the point. Well said. Let's get this sharing/gift economy off the ground! Let's incentivise everyone to give to each other and join the Bitshares network effect!
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
+5%
That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing is disappointment.
+1
Well said!
-
That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing disappointment.
The only thing that produce disappointment* is the BTS price drop (specially for the early investors)...
If the price would be climbing all these months I would "give a shit" for the ... "you-owe-me-something" culture.
PS and the suspicion that on these price levels the pressure could be very likely the result of traders that have... inside informations!
PS2 I miss you @tonyk
-
Don't forget, several people "continuously" have to sell BTS to fund daily living, etc.
-
Where's the summary of brownie points sharedrop? Missed the details...
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I concur.. this share drop expectations stuff is just nuts. These attitudes have likely cost everyone 99% of any future prospects of any kind of sharedrops that may have come.
Try going to a bank and telling them that you are entitled to their stocks because you had kept $50 in deposits in their bank the year before. Watch how fast you get taken out by security throwing the same kind of hissy fits we see on here.
They need to go build something for themselves and see how it is when the shoe is on the other foot and the mob screams to suck on your teet.
+5%
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
+5%
That's a healthy attitude. All this "you-owe-me-something" culture is producing is disappointment.
+1
Well said!
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's absolutely correct. The question investors are trying to answer though is what is BTS worth then?
I've previously described BTS as
Imagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario?
(Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.)
If BTS has run out of money & the founder and talent of BTS have formed another company and will only work post BTS 2.0 for market rates. It seems like now BTS's main claim to fame is a free windows license (Graphene)
Nobody owes it/you/me anything it's just a question for serious investors of determining why they should put their hard earned money into BTS at this point.
For me the answer is that it's a punt that BitAssets 2.0, the good partnerships and the referral system are going to combine to rapidly gain traction and if they don't, it's curtains. So very speculative at this point.
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's absolutely correct. The question investors are trying to answer though is what is BTS worth then?
I've previously described BTS as
Imagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario?
(Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.)
If BTS has run out of money & the founder and talent of BTS have formed another company and will only work post BTS 2.0 for market rates. It seems like now BTS's main claim to fame is a free windows license (Graphene)
Nobody owes it/you/me anything it's just a question for serious investors of determining why they should put their hard earned money into BTS at this point.
For me the answer is that it's a punt that BitAssets 2.0, the good partnerships and the referral system are going to combine to rapidly gain traction and if they don't, it's curtains. So very speculative at this point.
Windows was not open sourced, Bitshares is. I think the new licencing stops the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up etc to come here, create a fork, deploy it internally and thanks everyone for giving me this free product. Bitshares can now longer live and developers can be sure that nobody will come up with a competing chain using the same code, hence removing their only way of living and passion.
They will make millions with this, excellent. Good for them.
Newcomers can get cheaper BTS than we did, well thanks for the Brownie points the active community will get some shares. I believe that is has been impossible to be active in the past few months before the 2.0 announcement as the ones in the know could not say anything, and the ones that did not know, there was not opportunity to help. (It makes me wonder why I was testing in DevShares for a while.)
They could not have told everyone that they were working on a better product, it will have been admitting failure on the first one (even if for me works..)
What I want to see is a new bitshares toolkit, with a licensing that is clear and you can pitch to the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up.
For example 20% minimum to BTS, what is considered a competing chain and what is not. Examples of how to extend the toolkit etc. If it cannot be a new chain, but a valid addition to the chain by creating a hard fork, how you ensure revenue for the new company.
-
Identabit is using Graphene for their chain. They owe BTS nothing. They made an arrangement with a group of private devs called CNX to do so. These devs also owe BTS nothing. CNX chose to give BTS Graphene. Identabit chose to sharedrop. They didn't have to. Just like CNX didn't have to give BTS Graphene. Perhaps we should try to accept this new paradigm. It's my opinion that we as a community sound like whiny children right now. We do not own these devs or other chains that choose to sharedrop.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's absolutely correct. The question investors are trying to answer though is what is BTS worth then?
I've previously described BTS as
Imagine if the founder of Microsoft left when it was still a struggling start-up, taking all the talent with him to form another company and then told Microsoft shareholders that they would now only receive a free windows license and if they wanted any further work done by Bill Gates or the talent that they would have to pay market rates. How much would Microsoft be worth in that scenario?
(Especially if Microsoft couldn't afford to pay market rates because it was still a struggling start-up and also paying off an expensive merger from just 9 months prior that it had largely engaged in to retain it's founder.)
If BTS has run out of money & the founder and talent of BTS have formed another company and will only work post BTS 2.0 for market rates. It seems like now BTS's main claim to fame is a free windows license (Graphene)
Nobody owes it/you/me anything it's just a question for serious investors of determining why they should put their hard earned money into BTS at this point.
For me the answer is that it's a punt that BitAssets 2.0, the good partnerships and the referral system are going to combine to rapidly gain traction and if they don't, it's curtains. So very speculative at this point.
Windows was not open sourced, Bitshares is. I think the new licencing stops the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up etc to come here, create a fork, deploy it internally and thanks everyone for giving me this free product. Bitshares can now longer live and developers can be sure that nobody will come up with a competing chain using the same code, hence removing their only way of living and passion.
They will make millions with this, excellent. Good for them.
Newcomers can get cheaper BTS than we did, well thanks for the Brownie points the active community will get some shares. I believe that is has been impossible to be active in the past few months before the 2.0 announcement as the ones in the know could not say anything, and the ones that did not know, there was not opportunity to help. (It makes me wonder why I was testing in DevShares for a while.)
They could not have told everyone that they were working on a better product, it will have been admitting failure on the first one (even if for me works..)
What I want to see is a new bitshares toolkit, with a licensing that is clear and you can pitch to the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, or just an start up.
For example 20% minimum to BTS, what is considered a competing chain and what is not. Examples of how to extend the toolkit etc. If it cannot be a new chain, but a valid addition to the chain by creating a hard fork, how you ensure revenue for the new company.
- Yeah, I hope they make millions, they've put in a lot of work these last few years.
- I'm not personally a fan of the Brownies for a few reasons I've already discussed.
- I'm not sure there's any new BitShares toolkit? The toolkit BTS will be using is Graphene owned by CNX & if they want to sell it to start-ups or large companies I don't think BTS is guaranteed a piece of it?
-
- I'm not sure there's any new BitShares toolkit? The toolkit BTS will be using is Graphene owned by CNX & if they want to sell it to start-ups or large companies I don't think BTS is guaranteed a piece of it?
I think that was originally one of the appeals of BitShares - that you would get a piece of lot of different DAC's. In a way Ethereum has picked up that mantle because they aim to make building Dapps easy and so as a holder of Ether you may get some value out of any Dapp that is built on it that ends up being successful even if 99/100 are duds.
So far, they seem to be "imposing" the social consensus, but ideally it should be confirmed. A clear license would allow them to be marketed at higher levels, like Ethereum.
On your other Ethereum point, I totally agree with you, hence my other posts about a simple api / development for businesses / developers to built on top, together with the toolkit. They can have the same model as Facebook / or other cloud provider, with a bigger incentive which are the referrals.
Regarding share dropping, BTS should benefit always. First they are the root (after the merger) for all the initial investors (AGS, PTS, BTSX, DNS, etc), we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.
Second if it does not happen, they will be root for evil FUD, (with reasoning) like Microsoft/
Third BTS (in general) avoids overall centralisation.
Brownie points should be make more clear, at least the how many are going to be distributed. The total supply, etc. This will avoid creating a market were people might end up upset.
-
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.
Indeed. Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt. Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that. If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.
BM has literally said "if we vote on X then they won't vote right"...
-
Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.
You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.
Indeed. Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt. Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that. If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.
BM has literally said "if we vote on X then they won't vote right"...
I must have missed that, but that sort of inconsistency would be another good reason to prioritize independence from his (and any other individual's) authority. I have a lot of respect for BM for how far he's gotten this project, but way too many people around here have been treating him like a god for way too long, and I don't think that's been healthy for him. He's way better at R&D than he is at leadership and follow through.
-
It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.
This is not a zero sum game. There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist. They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.
I think they would've, especially as it would've meant that they were following the social consensus without any controversy.
Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX). My first post in that thread (on Page 3 IIRC) was pointing out the concern, while all around everyone was busy posting their addresses.
We reap what we sow.
-
It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%. There is little distinction in free market value. But that's exactly what happened. Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now. Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.
This is not a zero sum game. There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist. They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.
I think they would've, especially as it would've meant that they were following the social consensus without any controversy.
Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX). My first post in that thread (on Page 3 IIRC) was pointing out the concern, while all around everyone was busy posting their addresses.
We reap what we sow.
I have to agree with sumantso on this. After the whole AGS/PTS merger fiasco it's mind-boggling to think that we'd be walking this path again, yet here we are. Brownies are just another point of controversy that shouldn't be.
-
The only possible reason for controversy regarding brownie points is in how identibit is using them as a sharedrop target.
BM has emphatically stated on several occasions that his intention for brownies was to keep track of those who do work of value to make BitShares a success, nothing more. It is his personal scale of recognition. Please ground yourself in that fact.
Enter identibit and it's choice to sharedrop as a reward to those that help make it possible for identibit to exist in the first place. We can only speculate as to what role CNX played in influencing the use of brownies in the identibit deal. If it was completely and totally the brainchild and will of John Underwood without any CNX influence then any controversy lies solely on his shoulders. Let the whiners go take up their beef with identibit not CNX. However IMO the "whiners" don't really have a legitimate, rational reason for complaining (see below for more on that)
On the other hand, if CNX in any way contributed to the idea that brownies might serve identibit or they might be instrumental in making the identibit deal happen (i.e. without brownies being suggested by CNX and involved in the deal Underwood might not have closed the deal), then that is another story. If that happened it changes the nature brownies to not only a measure of valued contributors in the eyes of BM to a UIA with broader implications, especially if you want them as an investment vehicle (looking for financial ROI) rather than primarily as a measure of reputation and respect in the BitShares community.
If the later occurred then BM / CNX did indeed decide to "change the rules of the game" by changing the nature of brownies, and in that case there is a basis for complaint.
-
Brownie points should be make more clear, at least the how many are going to be distributed. The total supply, etc. This will avoid creating a market were people might end up upset.
Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX).
After the whole AGS/PTS merger fiasco it's mind-boggling to think that we'd be walking this path again, yet here we are. Brownies are just another point of controversy that shouldn't be.
If the later occurred then BM / CNX did indeed decide to "change the rules of the game" by changing the nature of brownies, and in that case there is a basis for complaint.
Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.
If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.
-
Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.
If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.
It's not that I think the intentions of brownies are bad or that the idea itself doesn't have merit...it's more just that it's obvious brownies are an avenue for controversy, as can be seen by all the conflicting opinions displayed here. These kinds of controversies need to be anticipated/avoided before they erupt and just end up pissing people off.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
(http://www.priscillapwood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/222.jpg)
-
Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.
If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.
No one is saying he isnt free to do it. He is free to do whatever he wants.
But we are noticing that as a result of him having done it, and then getting partners to sharedrop partially onto it and less onto BTS, that some BTS investors are bailing as a result, causing BTS to drop. BEcause BTS whales are free to do that as well. And they will, if they think the value of BTS is being degraded by brownies.
-
In all these complaints there are so many assumptions about intentions, influence, strategy, brownies and the reasons for BTS price movements. It is beyond ridiculous to make sweeping claims and judgements based on them.
It is impossible to quantify the value of possible future sharegifts and to determine how a person might decide to disburse future sharegifts. So instead of constantly complaining about this and that, why not try to quantify the value of Bitshares, the fundemental value of which does not change as a result of a sharegift.
-
Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.
If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.
No one is saying he isnt free to do it. He is free to do whatever he wants.
But we are noticing that as a result of him having done it, and then getting partners to sharedrop partially onto it and less onto BTS, that some BTS investors are bailing as a result, causing BTS to drop. BEcause BTS whales are free to do that as well. And they will, if they think the value of BTS is being degraded by brownies.
And the same investors are benefiting as a result of the work being done by the brownie holders.
These are not easy choices but BM should be free to make them without us constantly complaining.
If it was me who issued the brownie points and Identabit chose to sharedrop on them - would you come to me telling me to stop and complain that my brownie points are competing with BTS?
That would be ridiculous. So why should BM be more limited in his actions than any of us? Just because he happens to be the lead developer?
Anyway, if you really feel entitled to a bigger sharedrop, raise your issues with the sharedropper as it is his money and his decision.
-
Should we not have a sub-board for user issued assets like Brownies. Right now, Brownies are front and center and as such are given lots of attention/credibility; if we have lots of assets are we going to have them all be front and center as well and have actual BitShares discussions mixed in?
-
Should we not have a sub-board for user issued assets like Brownies. Right now, Brownies are front and center and as such are given lots of attention/credibility; if we have lots of assets are we going to have them all be front and center as well and have actual BitShares discussions mixed in?
Keep in mind the one of the key purposes of brownies is to acknowledge the work that the whole community is doing. So in that sense, it might merit a bit more attention because of its intended role as a form of community appreciation awards.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HFv9KqQgYhg/U3Y2liGPTkI/AAAAAAAAELk/0zB3tO0hloA/s1600/awards.gif)
-
we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.
Doesn't Follow my vote require some form of identity verification? In which case it seems more likely the potential it has will probably benefit IDentabit.
-
we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.
Doesn't Follow my vote require some form of identity verification? In which case it seems more likely the potential it has will probably benefit IDentabit.
On the same topic, besides FMV wouldn't PeerTracks benefit more from an identity based blockchain to distinguish genuine fans and make better use of integrating existing social media?
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale.
They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale.
They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale.
They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.
Yeah it was, I'm sure I worked out the numbers a few weeks ago. One minute...
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale.
They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.
Yeah it was, I'm sure I worked out the numbers a few weeks ago. One minute...
I guess Protoshares was trading back then??
-
I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it. :D
I'm sure a lot of the Bitshares community has diversified into Augur.
Why that?
Well if person A diversified $200 000 from BTS into Ether during their crowdsale, today he would be a millionaire, if he didn't today he would have less than $30 000. So it's tempting not to miss an Ethereum related crowdsale.
They still have another month to go though, so personally I'm holding off diversifying and seeing how BTS plays out in the next few weeks.
I dont believe that BTS was even trading yet when the Ether crowdsale was happening.
Yeah it was, I'm sure I worked out the numbers a few weeks ago. One minute...
I guess Protoshares was trading back then??
The Ether Sale ran for 42 days ending on September 2nd 2014.
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
(So I was using the fact that Ether is worth about 500% more today than during crowdsale and BTS is circa 85% less than during Ether crowdsale. Cass though for example was very quick/smart and sold his Ether for nearly a 1000% return.)
-
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.
-
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.
This year Dan has founded CNX, Brownies and Dan & Stan are also 2 of the 4 founders of IDentabit. I think he's also stated that he hasn't added to his BTS position for a looong time, even at these prices. So it's hard to discern how much faith they still have in BTS and their SuperDAC concept when they're diversifying so much elsewhere.
As a result, I think investors are fairly cautious and while BTS will rise on the 2.0 release it will probably have to start producing tangible results (new users and/or high BitAsset adoption) to get up to those levels again.
Edit: It's like before any of these businesses are profitable you're mostly investing in Dan & team's talent. It used to be that if you had $1000 you'd put it all in BTS to do that. Now if given the choice you might want to diversify between CNX, Brownies, IDBit and BTS. As a result BTS has suffered a bit.
-
Yeah it would take a lot for BTS to get back up there, especially with BTC down near $200. Its was more than twice that back when BTS was high.
The problem is that every person who has ever bought Bitshares is currently a bagholder, and a bunch of them would probably love to get out if the price returns to what they paid. Bitshares will have to work well and attract new users in order for the price to rise.
-
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.
This year Dan has founded CNX, Brownies and Dan & Stan are also 2 of the 4 founders of IDentabit. I think he's also stated that he hasn't added to his BTS position for a looong time, even at these prices. So it's hard to discern how much faith they still have in BTS and their SuperDAC concept when they're diversifying so much elsewhere.
As a result, I think investors are fairly cautious and while BTS will rise on the 2.0 release it will probably have to start producing tangible results (new users and/or high BitAsset adoption) to get up to those levels again.
Edit: It's like before any of these businesses are profitable you're mostly investing in Dan & team's talent. It used to be that if you had $1000 you'd put it all in BTS to do that. Now if given the choice you might want to diversify between CNX, Brownies, IDBit and BTS. As a result BTS has suffered a bit.
You need to think bigger, Pinky.
It's not a fixed size pie. All of these projects cross-reinforce each other while pursuing different parts of a very big world population. Soon, people will expect DPOS 2 performance from every chain and dismiss old Model-T's like bitcoin and its alts. Identabit brings in people with totally different values and makes it easier to move into the freedom of BitShares after they take the training wheels off. Brownies reward the doers in this community and it's the doers that will make BitShares grow. Surprisingly only a few members of this forum have inquired about private investment in CNX directly, so that's only a theoretical worry. But keep in mind, the more resources CNX has the faster the pie I mentioned will grow. Right now our biggest anticipated source of revenue in the near term is driving business to BitShares.
Better to have people diversifying within the BitShares family where resources get funneled back in to developing new projects while offloading development costs from BitShares. Believe me, Bytemaster has multiple industry-disrupting plans queued up clear out into next year already. To do that we need to raise more funds and get more independent entrepreneurs working on them in parallel.
Meanwhile, I have literally bet the family farm on BitShares - mortgaged it to the hilt - all in. And most of Dan's net worth is similarly so invested. He hasn't added to his holdings because he has no other source of income (yet) to buy more BTS and the personal holdings he has are going to pay salaries.
The SuperDAC concept has grown into the BitShares Exchange Network (BEN). That makes it a super-duper-DAC because it is also serving as the backbone for many manned not just unmanned businesses. How many announcements and pages of posts have I devoted to Big BEN this summer? How can you say "It's hard to discern?"
You shouldn't speculate negatively on that which you know so little about.
If you want to speculate in a complete vacuum of knowledge, speculate positively. It will be better for all of us. :)
-
BTSX started trading on July 21st. It's average price during the Ether crowdsale was probably something like $0.025
would be happy as hell if we could reach that again but im kind of skeptical. what was once the average price, would now be a big achievement.
This year Dan has founded CNX, Brownies and Dan & Stan are also 2 of the 4 founders of IDentabit. I think he's also stated that he hasn't added to his BTS position for a looong time, even at these prices. So it's hard to discern how much faith they still have in BTS and their SuperDAC concept when they're diversifying so much elsewhere.
As a result, I think investors are fairly cautious and while BTS will rise on the 2.0 release it will probably have to start producing tangible results (new users and/or high BitAsset adoption) to get up to those levels again.
Edit: It's like before any of these businesses are profitable you're mostly investing in Dan & team's talent. It used to be that if you had $1000 you'd put it all in BTS to do that. Now if given the choice you might want to diversify between CNX, Brownies, IDBit and BTS. As a result BTS has suffered a bit.
You need to think bigger, Pinky.
It's not a fixed size pie. All of these projects cross-reinforce each other while pursuing different parts of a very big world population. Soon, people will expect DPOS 2 performance from every chain and dismiss old Model-T's like bitcoin and its alts. Identabit brings in people with totally different values and makes it easier to move into the freedom of BitShares after they take the training wheels off. Brownies reward the doers in this community and it's the doers that will make BitShares grow. Surprisingly only a few members of this forum have inquired about private investment in CNX directly, so that's only a theoretical worry. But keep in mind, the more resources CNX has the faster the pie I mentioned will grow. Right now our biggest anticipated source of revenue in the near term is driving business to BitShares.
Better to have people diversifying within the BitShares family where resources get funneled back in to developing new projects while offloading development costs from BitShares. Believe me, Bytemaster has multiple industry-disrupting plans queued up clear out into next year already. To do that we need to raise more funds and get more independent entrepreneurs working on them in parallel.
Meanwhile, I have literally bet the family farm on BitShares - mortgaged it to the hilt - all in. And most of Dan's net worth is similarly so invested. He hasn't added to his holdings because he has no other source of income (yet) to buy more BTS and the personal holdings he has are going to pay salaries.
The SuperDAC concept has grown into the BitShares Exchange Network (BEN). That makes it a super-duper-DAC because it is also serving as the backbone for many manned not just unmanned businesses. How many announcements and pages of posts have I devoted to Big BEN this summer? How can you say "It's hard to discern?"
You shouldn't speculate negatively on that which you know so little about.
If you want to speculate in a complete vacuum of knowledge, speculate positively. It will be better for all of us. :)
I appreciate that you guys are extremely talented, have much larger plans and that some decisions were born of necessity and others are to a degree symbiotic but I fear you might be spreading your market value too thin at this particular stage as I indicated above.
Graphene itself seems like a triumph & I wish you luck. I am mostly taking a wait and see attitude over the coming weeks.
You shouldn't speculate negatively on that which you know so little about.
If you want to speculate in a complete vacuum of knowledge, speculate positively. It will be better for all of us. :)
Fortunately unlike Brownie holders, I'm free to speculate as I choose :)
I seem to recall similar advice given multiple times pre-merger & I would argue on that occasion my negative expectations were confirmed & I'm in less of a financial hole as a result of thinking & speculating critically and independently.
The share price itself is an aggregate of speculation which is clearly negative this year and arguably post IDBit announcement.
I know you think that if you could silence a few critics or have moderated threads, that the aggregate perception could become more positive & as a result we would all be helped by a rising BTS price, however this Chinese approach, is not effective. You have to address the cause not the symptoms.
My intention when I was anti-dilution and merger was to help BitShares because I sincerely believed you had a winner in BTSX & that the other measures would reduce the overall size of the pie drastically. Similarly here, I believe you're at risk of making the overall pie smaller if you don't focus on baking the BTS pie first.
-
Wait, Dan and Stan are 2 out of the 4 for Identabit? And then Stan says with a straight face that the Brownie sharedrop awarded by Identabit was John Underwood's own personal decision and they didn't even influence it?
I joined Bitshares back in 2013 enthused by BM's philosophy, and even when the price was going down I held through as I believed the project needed support. Now I am starting to think (have been for sometime) that we were fooled.
-
Wait, Dan and Stan are 2 out of the 4 for Identabit? And then Stan says with a straight face that the Brownie sharedrop awarded by Identabit was John Underwood's own personal decision and they didn't even influence it?
I joined Bitshares back in 2013 enthused by BM's philosophy, and even when the price was going down I held through as I believed the project needed support. Now I am starting to think (have been for sometime) that we were fooled.
If you scroll down the main website, you get to 'The Originators' who are receiving 10% of initial equity. http://identabit.com/
It may well have been John's decision though. I'm certainly not one to speculate negatively on things I know so little about :P
(In fairness though, some of my posts have been quite negative lately so apologies community, I'll take a break for a few weeks unless I have something positive to say.)
-
Wait, Dan and Stan are 2 out of the 4 for Identabit? And then Stan says with a straight face that the Brownie sharedrop awarded by Identabit was John Underwood's own personal decision and they didn't even influence it?
I joined Bitshares back in 2013 enthused by BM's philosophy, and even when the price was going down I held through as I believed the project needed support. Now I am starting to think (have been for sometime) that we were fooled.
If you scroll down the main website, you get to 'The Originators' who are receiving 10% of initial equity. http://identabit.com/
It may well have been John's decision though. I'm certainly not one to speculate negatively on things I know so little about :P
(In fairness though, some of my posts have been quite negative lately so apologies community, I'll take a break for a few weeks unless I have something positive to say.)
On Day One of the announcement I disclosed that we had been working with John Underwood continuously since last year and provided a link to when he appeared first on this forum. The opening announcement gave a full assessment of the pros and cons we see in working with Identabit and our reasoning processes for why we decided, on balance, it was a good initiative.
I also disclosed the following early on:
John found it to be the best available mailing list for what he wanted to do.
Yeah, and I'm sure you had nooooothing to do with it, right? Instead of negotiating a 20% drop on shareholders, as per the original social contract, you negotiated 10 % to the community and 10% to your private coin where you own 100% of the supply (or 99% of the potential future supply if you don't count Brownies released to date as yours). Doesn't anyone else see this as a serious breach of confidence?
To clarify: I don't actually believe you'll release 3 billion Brownies to yourselves prior to the snapshot, but I am sure that you'll try to get away with as much as the marks will let you.
It was John's decision. I pointed it out to him as an option when he explained what he wanted to accomplish.
The numbers are 20% to BTS and 20% to Brownie.PTS in the genesis supply. Read up on Proof of Appreciation at IDentabit.com to understand how a fixed amount of limited new supply is trickled into circulation (like Bitcoin and BitShares) but in such a way as to preserve value for genesis hodlers. No appreciation -- no new supply.
You can choose to view Brownies as a private coin or as a suggested list of Founders deserving shares based on an expert assessment of relative contribution to the company being formed. How do you think any private company allocates shares among its Founders?
Ultimately, John is the decider. If he doesn't like how the Brownie distribution is evolving he can always make adjustments.
And of course, also on Day 1 we disclosed our stake and involvement on the Identabit web site and via table in John's announcement on this forum.
The brownie sharedrop rewarded many others who indirectly helped make Identabit possible.
No sharedrops will occur on brownies which have not been distributed at the time of the drop.
So yeah, if I wasn't smiling all the time, I could easily keep a straight face. :)
(https://i.gyazo.com/f51db68700c6c50286037bedab9eea37.png)