BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: JPDiaz85 on April 20, 2017, 03:55:47 am
-
Hi everyone,
I'm new to the crypto world and have been looking into investing into the idea of a decentralized exchange. I've been doing some research and I can't seem to understand the major differences between Bitshares and the Waves Platform. Could anyone explain why one would consider investing in one and not the other? What are the pros and cons of each?
Thanks in advance!
-
This was discussed in the bitshares telegram chatroom yesterday.
I was asking if anyone knows of any thing that waves can do that bitshares can't. The simple answer is waves is technically inferior to bitshares.
Waves claims to be decentralised but their USD isn't decentralised, it is essentially an IOU (aka gateway)
The USD in bitshares has no human liability and therefore cannot be shut down or regulated. Our USD is essentially permissionless and not effected by banks freezing funds, AML/KYC etc.
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
-
you said good, we don't need to argue with others, we need good PR.
don't forget Bytemaster is always the winner every time he argued with others.Vitalik never had a chance.
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
Have to agree with this.
Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
Have to agree with this.
Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.
This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
Have to agree with this.
Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.
This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.
Reserve pool does not have hundreds of millions of dollars, it has a bunch of bullshit tokens. Try to use them for development and their price will go down fast, we have already seen this. Waves have different kind of funding. They don't need to dilute their tokens to fund the development, because they already sold them, and they can do with their funds whatever they want. They don't depend on fees, and they don't need to go through worker proposal bullshit each time they need to fix a flaw in their exchange. This is a big advantage they have over bitshares.
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
Have to agree with this.
Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.
This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.
Reserve pool does not have hundreds of millions of dollars, it has a bunch of bullshit tokens. Try to use them for development and their price will go down fast, we have already seen this. Waves have different kind of funding. They don't need to dilute their tokens to fund the development, because they already sold them, and they can do with their funds whatever they want. They don't depend on fees, and they don't need to go through worker proposal bullshit each time they need to fix a flaw in their exchange. This is a big advantage they have over bitshares.
Bitshares are not bullshit tokens, to suggest so is absurd. Given that there have been multiple successful worker proposals whilst the Bitshares price has increased in value I don't see a correlation between spending a few thousand and the decrease in marketcap. Waves performed an ICO (potential securities fraud much?), worker proposals aren't required for upgrades to the network (the witnesses just need to upgrade their hardware), if waves doesn't have worker proposals then their funding is held centralized without input from the community?
-
BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.
Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.
Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.
I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.
Have to agree with this.
Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.
This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.
Reserve pool does not have hundreds of millions of dollars, it has a bunch of bullshit tokens. Try to use them for development and their price will go down fast, we have already seen this. Waves have different kind of funding. They don't need to dilute their tokens to fund the development, because they already sold them, and they can do with their funds whatever they want. They don't depend on fees, and they don't need to go through worker proposal bullshit each time they need to fix a flaw in their exchange. This is a big advantage they have over bitshares.
Bitshares are not bullshit tokens, to suggest so is absurd. Given that there have been multiple successful worker proposals whilst the Bitshares price has increased in value I don't see a correlation between spending a few thousand and the decrease in marketcap. Waves performed an ICO (potential securities fraud much?), worker proposals aren't required for upgrades to the network (the witnesses just need to upgrade their hardware), if waves doesn't have worker proposals then their funding is held centralized without input from the community?
Waves community already made its input during ICO. Their ICO had a lot of red flags, but the result is, they have these funds, and they have a business plan which makes sense, and they do deliver the product.
-
Practical experience tells us that this whole idea of being employed by blockchain through worker proposal is a utopia. And the guy who invented it understands this, and that's why he is not employed by no blockchain, but instead, he is organizing ICO for his other project right now, because raising funds through ICOs works like charm, although most of ICO projects out there are crap.
-
Practical experience tells us that this whole idea of being employed by blockchain through worker proposal is a utopia. And the guy who invented it understands this, and that's why he is not employed by no blockchain, but instead, he is organizing ICO for his other project right now, because raising funds through ICOs works like charm, although most of ICO projects out there are crap.
Right, so because one guy moved to a new job you're saying the company mustn't work despite continuing to grow and succeed? Have you never worked at a job where one of your colleagues left for a new job? LOL!
There have been many successful worker proposals since he left, move past what happened almost 2 years ago now!
-
Hi everyone,
I'm new to the crypto world and have been looking into investing into the idea of a decentralized exchange. I've been doing some research and I can't seem to understand the major differences between Bitshares and the Waves Platform. Could anyone explain why one would consider investing in one and not the other? What are the pros and cons of each?
Thanks in advance!
To put it simply, Waves uses centralized order matching and logs it on a blockchain...
Bitshares is actually a Decentralized "Meta" Exchange. Many exchanges can be connected to bitshares...and the orders are all matched on the blockchain so people can't manipulate like polo does..and waves could.
-
Why not ICO?
If we do it we can get much fund because we have better product than Waves, EOS and others.