BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pm
-
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
-
well , it translates the same in Chinese at least . "learn from bitshares' failures " = "learn from the reasons why bitshares has failed "
i'm sure if his English could be better he'd use the word "mistakes" instead of "failures" .
Anyway , he's right about one sentence : technology can not fix dumb people .
The difference between DAO and BTS is that , BTS didn't have a 6 million USD budget in the first place , it's just in BM's imagination . The dilution plan was accepted reluctantly by the community only because of :
1. BM will perform some big thing with vote , millions of users will be using BTS , hence any reputation cost by the merger and continue dilution could be compensated .
2. Upon the delivery of 2.0 , BM magically proposed that to unleash the delegate-by-delegate dilution to worker dilution , with a misleading promise that all dilution will be vested for years , no selling pressure .
After the two promises were broken , he still convinced that he has 6 million budget to spend . This is what I called "wishful thinking" .
Anyway , I don't believe the future holds for The DAO . But what BM said regarding the "failures" of BItShares and blame it on "dumb people" are just plain stupid .
By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already ???
-
Well with bitshares you not only get no marketing but bad PR for free ..
-
Well with bitshares you not only get no marketing but bad PR for free ..
What he said on the post regarding BitShares was misleading . He didn't mention the story behind the merger to account for the vote and anti-dilution issue .
but hey ...i don't want to complaint about him , because bitshares has pop up these days more than i've even seen in the past year due to his post . because of his post , some old people who left because they can't stand BM are now paying attention to bitshares since the post said he has left and it's still functioning . :P
-
Even bad press is good for us. Look how far Trump got with his statements. More and more people are interested in BitShares now and we are seeing a more stable Bitshares Blockchain for the next months. That is great for all of us!
-
Bts didn't failed, price is strong at those level, good oportunity to be part or increase your share on this amazing project, of course if i had the power i would change some things but you have to respect this model n take.the best of.it
-
By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already ???
Define "successful". Brownies are just BM's way of sending a thank you note and keeping track of who he appreciates for future reference. (And a demo he threw together one weekend to dramatize how UIA's can be used.)
History will write the final chapters on many of the things people now prematurely jeer about.
And "history is gonna change."
:)
-
Even bad press is good for us. Look how far Trump got with his statements. More and more people are interested in BitShares now and we are seeing a more stable Bitshares Blockchain for the next months. That is great for all of us!
THAT'S THE KEY!! :D
(https://i.imgflip.com/vi7qs.jpg)
-
BM and STAN are not foolish，they are clever to blame all “mistakes” to “dumb people” . BRAVO
-
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDao
Sent from my XT1063 using Tapatalk
-
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDao
Sent from my XT1063 using Tapatalk
+5% +5% +5%
-
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDao
Sent from my XT1063 using Tapatalk
true, it is easy to start conversations about the DAO and DAC
-
Five hundred million bts
where is vote&dns？
too young too simple somtimes naive
-
It's not cool for BM to blame the community or "dumb people" for the "mistakes" of BTS, instead of thinking of his own mistake for not fully discussing with community when he made those big decisions.
-
I don`t think DAO would success, but DAO and BTS are totally different .
1.How bm spend 6M U.S. dollar?
2.Does he discuss with community? when he spend money ?
3.is there any vote when he spend money?
-
It's not cool for BM to blame the community or "dumb people" for the "mistakes" of BTS, instead of thinking of his own mistake for not fully discussing with community when he made those big decisions.
not cool at all .
I can not explain enough to people without wasting my time why bitshares' founder has announced the "bitshares' failures" .
after all , a large part of BM's own mistakes wasn't even mentioned in the article . I had to teach them the history over and over again until they realized : oh , it's BM who failed , not bitshares , and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
-
It's not cool for BM to blame the community or "dumb people" for the "mistakes" of BTS, instead of thinking of his own mistake for not fully discussing with community when he made those big decisions.
not cool at all .
I can not explain enough to people without wasting my time why bitshares' founder has announced the "bitshares' failures" .
after all , a large part of BM's own mistakes wasn't even mentioned in the article . I had to teach them the history over and over again until they realized : oh , it's BM who failed , not bitshares , and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fair enough, but it assumes BM didn't learn from past mistakes ..
-
.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fair enough, but it assumes BM didn't learn from past mistakes ..
Many could say BM's biggest mistake was in trying to make it truly decentralized in its governance. There is a reason the United States was constructed in this way---to make big changes very difficult. Since Bitshares governance model has essentially created a DAC that doesn't even allow for key developers (at the very least) to get funding on the core project, it has forced people for a very long time to sacrifice at ridiculous levels just to keep it alive (why you have seen many devs leave, I'd suspect). Now that isn't really BM's fault imo...because it is our choice that he gave us.
Instead of the ridiculous argument that most in crypto give: "if you don't like the governance or the way a chain evolves, just sell them and leave"...
He and the team gave us a crypto that gives us another option--to change it from within & have that decision logged transparently on a blockchain. How people do not understand the absolute pristine beauty of this blows my mind.
In the long-term, I think this is going to make a great deal of sense for bitshares because it is the foundation. If we eventually start seeing many people using graphene blockchains, it makes a great deal of sense for bitshares to have this kind of governance model--given that we start including graphene-based blockchains' leadership at the table for committee positions. We could eventually even give the top 11 marketcap graphene chains' leaders a guaranteed spot at the table to make committee decisions for the Flagship (which it was always said to be). Then each chain could bring up changes internally and serve as the test beds for those changes. If the changes go well...those chains' leaders could bring them as proposals to the community and have them voted up or down.
-
.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fair enough, but it assumes BM didn't learn from past mistakes ..
Some mistakes are made from inability on some aspects , but some are not . Some are fundamentally incompatible for those who wish to participate in the crypto world , some are just playing dumb .
STEEM maybe a good software , I don't know , it may even be a good forum one day . But as an investor , investing in it takes a lot of guts , even more than blindly buying Dogecoin .
I just brought some Bitshares again even with the down trend since i know at least from the face value BM has no control over it . But I would never consider buying STEEM even if it goes to the moon .
I could be making a huge mistake . Well , some money is just not mine to earn I guess .
-
I sold BTS then BM leaved, as many more people, but now I'm ready to rebuy, because Bitsheres are finally free from authority and did't crashed!
Now there is only two truly decentralized platforms in crypto: Bitcoin and Bitshares. Is is huge!
This means that Bitshares resilient, it will survive hustle market conditions, and as Bitcoin, it will rise to the top! But this time, top coin will not have problems with scalability and governance. Boom!
I don't think that we should be angry on bytemaster, he did tremendous amount of work and was not fairly compensated. I would like to see in the future that we hiring him as developer.
I played a little with Steem and it is very promising. It has simple sell point, it is addictive like facebook, using it reminds me feeling that I have using Bitcoin in early days. Try it guys, don't hold your anger.
-
I sold BTS then BM leaved, as many more people, but now I'm ready to rebuy, because Bitsheres are finally free from authority and did't crashed!
Now there is only two truly decentralized platforms in crypto: Bitcoin and Bitshares. Is is huge!
This means that Bitshares resilient, it will survive hustle market conditions, and as Bitcoin, it will rise to the top! But this time, top coin will not have problems with scalability and governance. Boom!
I don't think that we should be angry on bytemaster, he did tremendous amount of work and was not fairly compensated. I would like to see in the future that we hiring him as developer.
I played a little with Steem and it is very promising. It has simple sell point, it is addictive like facebook, using it reminds me feeling that I have using Bitcoin in early days. Try it guys, don't hold your anger.
You made my day .. thanks for sharing your optimism.
Besides that, i can tell you that there are businesses (new and old) that are ALREADY hiring deva for front and backend development!
-
The Dao is our friend, I'm using every possible situation to talk about BitShares thanks to TheDao
+5% +5% +5% yep, me too:
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/[member=30868]kenCode[/member]/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
-------------------------------------------------------
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
teletype: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
quote: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
grrrrr these links. one line of code for this forum could fix it, ie:
If "fwdSlash+atSymbol" isFound Then linkToUserProfile == False
Can someone in contact with Bitsapphire please have them fix this? Thank you :)
-
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
Why not demand that the new kid on the block (STEEM) play by existing rules of protocol and fix their URLs?
There are standard methods of encoding the "@" in the link, but none of them work in STEEM: @ @ @ because STEEM doesn't decode them. Also, as you point out SMF presumes the "@" is a reference to it's users, which is one problem, but steem makes a similar assumption (who knows, STEEM may have picked up the convention from SMF!)
So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
and this does work, but only for previewing your post; when you save it SMF translates the "@" into bbcode for member mention. SMF even converts the "@" in [ code ] sections, so I had to add a space so SMF wouldn't replace it, which messes up the URL [url=https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's STEEM article[/url]
Ken's article on STEEM (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
-
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income
Why not demand that the new kid on the block (STEEM) play by existing rules of protocol and fix their URLs?
There are standard methods of encoding the "@" in the link, but none of them work in STEEM: @ @ @ because STEEM doesn't decode them. Also, as you point out SMF presumes the "@" is a reference to it's users, which is one problem, but steem makes a similar assumption (who knows, STEEM may have picked up the convention from SMF!)
So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
and this does work, but only for previewing your post; when you save it SMF translates the "@" into bbcode for member mention. SMF even converts the "@" in [ code ] sections, so I had to add a space so SMF wouldn't replace it, which messes up the URL [url=https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's STEEM article[/url]
Ken's article on STEEM (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
yep . @ is not a good thing .
It broke links on IM tools too .
-
Ken's article on STEEM (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
cool, let's see if the hyperlink md works without the space now:
kenCode[/member]/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's article on STEEM (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/[member=30868)
edit: nope.
-
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
-
So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
HTML-encoding in a URL will never work (unless it is decoded by the browser, before you click on the link).
For a URL you must use URL-encoding.
Testing: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income (https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/%40kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income)
...doesn't work, but this time it really is steemit's fault. :-)
-
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
[...]
Can someone in contact with Bitsapphire please have them fix this? Thank you :)
SMF is used by Bitcointalk. Do we not want steem it links to work their either?
It's trivial for steemit links to work with/without the @ symbol in them.
For instance, if you look at url forwarders like that tiny (url) service., they give you 2 different options in order to make links work.
steemit could be the same, offer 2 different url methods, which still show the same steemit page. This way it won't interfere with SMF. We shouldn't have to go to every forum and ask them to manually fix their SMF forum, whether or not, it's a broken feature of SMF or not.
Let's get steemit to accept a different url that is compatible with SMF and more generic. It's obvious that normally you not see @ symbols in URL's very often eventhough it is an accepted character.
(..and yes, I have seen other sites using @ symbol in their URL. I am just saying, it isn't common)
-
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.
I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
-
Well with bitshares you not only get no marketing but bad PR for free ..
I am unable to find an adequate reaction gif for this.
and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fuck history, look at the damn price son! Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up. ;)
SMF is used by Bitcointalk. Do we not want steem it links to work their either?
Good point.
-
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.
I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.)
Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-fail
Within 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.
Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.
While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.
(I still think that business model is SmartCoins and am in favour of funding SmartCoin liquidity and yield especially.)
BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.
-
and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fuck history, look at the damn price son! Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up. ;)
Steemit is most like Reddit imo
As of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.
As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7
In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit
So Reddit is valued at like $15 per user?
So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.
That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
-
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.
I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.)
Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-fail
Within 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.
Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.
While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.
BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.
To quote Neil in our recent press release:
“Blockchain projects need to stop playing in the sandbox, and start solving real world problems,”
http://www.peerplays.com/news/nuclear-bunker-reactivates-war-games-protocol-on-the-blockchain/
I would argue that most.. even now.. are still just sandbox experiments with very little business fundamentals because blockchain in its current infancy is unadoptable to the masses.
BM has said time and again in regards to bitshares.. and even steem.. this is an experiment. Other crypto projects are not so forthright in what they are doing.
So basically you are saying that because dilution went so long and with so little return the idea of the worker proposal was seen as just another thing that would provide little value/return is what you are saying.. I can agree with that.
If you are going to compare blockchain development to business development though, it is still critical during the early stages to have capitalization.. and companies that don't have money use shares. Just stopping dilution and not having any kind of development of any kind (beyond just programming) is not how to carry an organization forward.
The scaling quote you gave was not just because of what was done, but I believe primarily it was because of lack of business acumen and experience that lead to those decisions... something that was lacking in Bitshares, and most blockchain projects today.
It's important to note though.. people learn.. experience is gained.. and the same mistakes tend not to get repeated.
-
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330
Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the instantmined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(
-
Guys, please keep believing in a potential merger of abTS and Steem ... because telling you it wont happen (not only for technical reasons) seems to not change your mind ..
-
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330
Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(
keep away of Steemit
-
well , it translates the same in Chinese at least . "learn from bitshares' failures " = "learn from the reasons why bitshares has failed "
i'm sure if his English could be better he'd use the word "mistakes" instead of "failures" .
Anyway , he's right about one sentence : technology can not fix dumb people .
The difference between DAO and BTS is that , BTS didn't have a 6 million USD budget in the first place , it's just in BM's imagination . The dilution plan was accepted reluctantly by the community only because of :
1. BM will perform some big thing with vote , millions of users will be using BTS , hence any reputation cost by the merger and continue dilution could be compensated .
2. Upon the delivery of 2.0 , BM magically proposed that to unleash the delegate-by-delegate dilution to worker dilution , with a misleading promise that all dilution will be vested for years , no selling pressure .
After the two promises were broken , he still convinced that he has 6 million budget to spend . This is what I called "wishful thinking" .
Anyway , I don't believe the future holds for The DAO . But what BM said regarding the "failures" of BItShares and blame it on "dumb people" are just plain stupid .
By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already ???
AGS fund was wasted dry
dns vote nothing added to bts
-
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330
Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(
keep away of Steemit
Tell that to BM https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945
-
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330
Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(
keep away of Steemit
Tell that to BM https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945
Did you see my post above? What are the current user metrics for Steemit? I would be surprised if it's even a $500 000 DAC.
Steemit is most like Reddit imo
As of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.
As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7
In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit
So Reddit is valued at like $15 per user?
So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.
That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
-
Steemit is most like Reddit imo
(http://image.prntscr.com/image/78bcf67e409c45b2b2b0f5067087f842.jpg)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit
So Reddit is valued at like $15 per user?
So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.
That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
(http://image.prntscr.com/image/3c28fb3b69c74ff58e9251be30c594c9.jpg)
-
keep away of Steemit
That's horrible advice from my perspective. Anyone who feels stuck in BTS would have done themselves a favor by posting on Steemit.com early, but it's not too late! You still have another month to earn part of the $2 million given to posters and curators. I have done quite well myself and would highly recommend anyone here complaining about their BTS investment to give Steemit a try if for no other reason to make up some of your perceived or real losses.
If you feel bytemaster has somehow let you down, why would you not want to take some of the free money offered by Steem to make up for your claimed misfortunes? It seems counterproductive to sit here complaining about your woes when you could have already made up any losses by simply making good post on Steemit or curating some good content and even better you could be accomplishing this off of the Steem platform you appear to despise so much for whatever reason.
If you blame someone for costing you money due to a decision or action on their part are you going to sit around moaning about it all day or would you rather go make that money back from them off of another project they created?
"I lost money from that guys last project so no way I'm going to go take some easy money off of his next one to make up for my losses!"
Seriously consider what you are saying here. It makes absolutely no sense. Dan's like, "Hey here's $2 million dollars for you!" and you guys/girls are like, "No way man, I'm not typing and posting links to earn back my money! I'd rather bitch all day and earn nothing!".
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/es.megaman/images/7/7b/Jackie_chan.png/revision/latest?cb=20130104201219)
-
Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed
Half a year later he will preach his sheep how steem has failed.
-
keep away of Steemit
That's horrible advice from my perspective. Anyone who feels stuck in BTS would have done themselves a favor by posting on Steemit.com early, but it's not too late! You still have another month to earn part of the $2 million given to posters and curators. I have done quite well myself and would highly recommend anyone here complaining about their BTS investment to give Steemit a try if for no other reason to make up some of your perceived or real losses.
If you feel bytemaster has somehow let you down, why would you not want to take some of the free money offered by Steem to make up for your claimed misfortunes? It seems counterproductive to sit here complaining about your woes when you could have already made up any losses by simply making good post on Steemit or curating some good content and even better you could be accomplishing this off of the Steem platform you appear to despise so much for whatever reason.
If you blame someone for costing you money due to a decision or action on their part are you going to sit around moaning about it all day or would you rather go make that money back from them off of another project they created?
"I lost money from that guys last project so no way I'm going to go take some easy money off of his next one to make up for my losses!"
Seriously consider what you are saying here. It makes absolutely no sense. Dan's like, "Hey here's $2 million dollars for you!" and you guys/girls are like, "No way man, I'm not typing and posting links to earn back my money! I'd rather bitch all day and earn nothing!".
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/es.megaman/images/7/7b/Jackie_chan.png/revision/latest?cb=20130104201219)
what i learnt in the past
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
and in this case i decided the source of the not well doing money is my affection to bitshares and to bytemaster. i will not spend time with a premined coin with fake marketvalue 3 times BTS. i will spend my time and money with other projects and people. i spend nearly 2.5 years with BitShares and this decision is
not going well.
so i "lost" money here, but bytemaster and team could life for 2.5 years with this money and choose to try a new project with out the early investors. The decision to leave us behind was not made from me.
how "steem" was created is so wrong i do not want to have a stake in it, so i will realocate my time to better projects.
-
Lets have some patience guys I bought at 825 n I not complaining....bitcoin is having his bull run lets uave some patience, bitshares will explode soon, is near n I fell it
-
Lets have some patience guys I bought at 825 n I not complaining....bitcoin is having his bull run lets uave some patience, bitshares will explode soon, is near n I fell it
good luck! i waited to long.
-
Where is Brian Page when you need him.
-
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account (http://steemit.com/?r=steem-news), make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler? In the time spent here complaining you could have earned back thousands and probably done so complaining on Steem about Steem or BitShares. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but you're doing it here FOR FREE! That's nuts man. Do it and get paid to do it, possibly. I make no promises that bringing your same sour attitude will pay off on Steem, it's likely not to, but what did you lose? Nothing. But you could possibly make something and if nothing else you could upvote others post and make some money.
You guys are refusing to take free money from the guy you say cost you money. If you don't take advantage of that situation it's your own fault and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
-
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account (http://steemit.com/?r=steem-news), make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler? In the time spent here complaining you could have earned back thousands and probably done so complaining on Steem about Steem or BitShares. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, but you're doing it here FOR FREE! That's nuts man. Do it and get paid to do it, possibly. I make no promises that bringing your same sour attitude will pay off on Steem, it's likely not to, but what did you lose? Nothing. But you could possibly make something and if nothing else you could upvote others post and make some money.
You guys are refusing to take free money from the guy you say cost you money. If you don't take advantage of that situation it's your own fault and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
thanks for your advice.
we can agree that you and me don't understand the position of each other. That is fine with me. My point is i will not use STEEM because i do not believe in this fake marketcap and my time is money. why should i spend time on steem when you need the approval of upvotes to earn money. I do not believe that STEEM tolerates other opinions, so i am biased. Cryptoworld is big enough, so i will miss this great opportunity, or maybe it is just a waste of time for you and everyone envolved, we will see. take care!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG3H9E-B464&feature=youtu.be&t=25s
-
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account (http://steemit.com/?r=steem-news), make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler?
In order for you to earn money, somebody has to throw money at you. What could be simpler, damn it!
-
"don't throw more money into things that are not going well"
Throwing money into Steem is not required. The account is free! Create an account (http://steemit.com/?r=steem-news), make a post, upvote other good post, earn money. What could be simpler?
In order for you to earn money, somebody has to throw money at you. What could be simpler, damn it!
While somebody is "throwing" money at you, she is getting half to her own pocket. The real money comes from who are "holding" but not throwing out money at all. The mechanism is something like "get money from the silent ones' pockets and throwing out".
On the other hand, while others are throwing out a little part of your money, the platform gets eye balls & network effects, so it's expected the money remains in your pocket will grow.
-
Yeah, right. Money in your pocket breed like rabbits.
-
it s very hard to accept a failure.