Quote from: onceuponatime on October 29, 2014, 06:40:41 PM

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 29, 2014, 06:36:39 PM
It's standard marketing practice to clearly define what an early adopter (of your product) looks like. It's not sufficient to say "lets target everyone". You need to target a very narrow band if you want conversion rate to be high. Here's how I see the ideal early adopter of BitUSD and other BitAssets:

Age: 18 - 35
Sex: Male
Education: University
Occupation: Tech related
Political: Libertarian
Location: Latin America

While your ideal early adopter demographic sounds good in theory, my question would be: How come so very, very few of we early adopters fit your ideal? domographic?

Agreed. I think that the Location needs some work. Other than that I fit into it except you may want to broaden the occupation to include Finance/Economics. I'm sure I'm not the only individual who follows Austrian economics in this forum.

Most of the Tech related posts/concepts are over my head, but I know there are a lot of economists/finance professionals would be sold on the idea of Bitshares. Especially if they lean libertarian.

Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Perspective is everything, there is no "objective" right thing to do in this case.  The stories we choose to tell ourselves affect how we feel about things. 

So here is a perspective for your consideration.

BTSX, VOTE, DNS, AGS, and PTS are all separate groups of people each of which wants something from *me* whether I owe them anything or not.    They all want me to do, say, or build something that makes them money.  Now the reality is that my goal is to build the best toolkit and keep pushing things forward on that front.  People gave us money "no strings attached" to build these things.   Other people took my work on the toolkit and turned it into BTSX.   I gave grants to DNS & Play.   Everyone else is an independent group of people speculating on an asset that they know is not a security, has no legally binding promises, and is a hope.

All of these groups represents a "team" or "tribe" that wants me to play for them and no one wants me to play "against them" in the competitive free market.   

So the first team that made a bid for my attention was VOTE.... vote offered me and everyone on our team a large stake along with PTS / AGS... but offered BTSX nothing.   This was a fair and legitimate way for me to go... after delivering on BTSX core features and spending funds donated prior to BTSX snapshot.   But it would have made team BTSX very upset at losing their key players for long term growth even though plans were in place to allow BTSX to steal all of the work paid for by team VOTE for free. 

So the next thing I did is propose a bid for my attention that would bring everyone under one roof.  Who's call is it?  Mine.  Do I get to be arbitrary? Yes because I get to chose which project I work on.  So it comes down to me negotiating with BTSX on the terms of the deal.   I effectively ask BTSX to share drop on the competition as a means of motivating but not requiring them to join us. 

So team BTSX got my attention and every other team got something out of the deal.   DNS + VOTE could still exist and could still compete.  We didn't actually *buy* their stake, we just honored it with no strings attached.  Did they get a "fair price"... well, a gift is certainly fair.   

Now DNS is faced with a challenge on how to develop, grow, and hire talent.  They are free to form a team, hire developers, and make a go.  Nothing has been taken from them except their project lead has handed it off.   They are free to plunder all the work we do on BTS and thus have much cheaper development cost... so all DNS must pay for is marketing.   

If DNS wants to get talent back it would likely have to dilute significantly to hire someone to take the helm.... I believe Toast is even willing to hand over 100% of the Dev fund and I will gladly give my and I3 stake in DNS to the new management.

So there you go... change the perspective and it changes the perception of "fair".   

Now back to work on making BTS great. 

 

+5%

Quote from: GaltReport on October 22, 2014, 02:21:18 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2014, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: bobb on October 22, 2014, 01:55:31 PM
You are arguing solely from the BTSX point of view.
You personally advertised DNS/KeyID as one of the core DACs before.
Toast was maintaining it, he contacted exchanges to start trading.
You explicitly mentioned on the forum that the DACs will be valued according to their market cap.
Toast assured anyone that the funds will be preserved!

And your argument is that you could have copied toast work anyway and "DNS" should  be lucky that you didn't do that.
I guess my main point is that I think you also have a responsibility for DNS as people invested in it because it was part of your vision.
You can not let people believe that they invest in a DAC which you are also behind and then tell them later screw you I could have copied that anyway.

Let me know if I missed something here.
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it.

It is very challenging for people to put themselves in other peoples shoes.... especially when people have competing interest. 

1) I put my hat on as a DNS holder and asked... would I abandon the project at X price?
2) I put my hat on as a BTSX holder and asked... would I buy the project at X price?
3) I then put my hat on as someone in our ecosystem....

When I put on my BTSX hat I say, implement everything and compete with our larger network effect... don't buyout anyone, just add dilution to pay for work.. I probably wouldn't pay more than 1%
When I put on my DNS hat I say.... can I compete with BTSX and if so how...  I probably could, but I was just share dropped BTS and must decide whether I think I can grow DNS faster or BTS faster and devote my time and energy accordingly.    I could probably be bought out for less than 3%

When I put on my "individual hat" I say... "every other project is so young that they get a combined 20% in the larger pie" because none of them had their primary features implemented yet.

So it was really about dividing that 20% between AGS/PTS/DNS/VOTE as far as I was concerned.  Recognizing that 90% of the stakeholders in these 4 are identical... the remaining stake holders are arguing over who gets what stake of 1.8% of $51M which is less than $1M in valuation that could potentially be balanced wrong.   That is a *ROUNDING ERROR* in the grand scheme of things.  That is with the margin of volatility / spread in the markets estimation of the value of all systems.

I think this is correct on all accounts.

+5% +5%

I understand frustration because things do not appear (remember, this allocation is just a proposal) to be playing out the way investors initially thought. But here is my issue with the division this has caused.

1. Plenty of organizations pivot in order to make themselves more profitable in the long run. If you buy shares at an IPO, you are at the mercy of the majority of the other shareholders when they vote on the Board of Directors and how to move forward with company decisions. It is just one of the risks of playing the game.

2. We obviously all got on board cause we believe in Dan and his ability to make difficult decision. Anyone who has followed him closely should trust that he isn't talking about free markets, decentralization, etc. just to blow smoke up our asses then flip things to make a pretty penny for himself and a few larger investors. It is important to keep the bigger picture in mind. We are uniting for a movement that will provide for a crypto ecosystem that BTC was unable to provide. it will be a rocky start, but fighting about this small of a portion of the total pie will not help propel Bitshares to the game changer we know it can be.

It is important to make sure things are as "fair" as possible, but at a certain point we need to come together. As with any investment (equities, fixed income, land, or your personal career), you have to be wiling to endure some setbacks as long as you are monitoring progress and are still moving in the direction of the ultimate goal.

I fully trust Dan and am certain that he has our best interests in mind - if he didn't, he wouldn't risk disclosing Bitshares' next moves on an open forum and he would simply implement them without a care for public opinion. This project is bigger than any one of us and it will not advance if we are unwilling to come to terms with that.

I was concerned when I heard about this last month. What are everyone's' thoughts on this?  http://www.coindesk.com/dogecoin-celebrates-litecoin-merge-mining/

DogeCoin is up 65% in the last 24hours and I'm worried that this jump is going to stem our momentum. http://coinmarketcap.com/

I know Doge still has the issues that come with the POW instead of POS, but I feel like when it comes down to the fundamentals of it... most people just aren't going to got it.

Any thoughts? anything Bitshares guys have in the pipeline?

Has BitShares looked into speaking with Russ Roberts from Stanford's Hoover Institute? I highly recommend going to econtalk.org and listen to some of his podcasts. Very good unbiased information from a fairly libertarian guy. An hour podcast between him and Dan Larimer would be bad ass!!! I think he would love the concept of BitShares and could really help publicize the campaign. I know you guys probably have your hands full, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to provide a suggestion that could help.

Does anyone else have any ideas of resources we could leverage to get the word out? It is only a matter of time before this goes big and if we all pitch in, we will all benefit to a greater degree!

There was a very informative webinar on Thursday August 28th. During the webinar it was said that the recording would be posted on the website in the next couple of days. Has it been posted, cause I can't find it. I know a lot of people that want to support the movement but want to see the webinar first (as it is the most comprehensive explanation of BitShares as a concept in addition to the walk through of how to invest). If anyone knows anything about this or when the next webinar might be, please let me know. The more exposure that the webinar gets, the more likely it is that the Matrket Cap will grow.

Please let me know if anyone has any input/information that I am not seeing.

Thanks!

Ok. So my understanding is that the only way to receive a payout for holding BTSX is to vote for a particular delegate, based on the assumption that there will be a payout. The fee that I am charged for casting my vote will reduce my balance, but it is done with the anticipation of being compensated for my support? I just want to make sure I fully comprehend the logistics of how the process works to ensure that I am approaching the cost-benefit analysis of each vote correctly.

Thanks!

Just got into BTSX and am excited to get involved, but I'm not sure I understand the voting process 100%. If I give a thumbs up to a delegate, is there a transaction involved in which I am charged a fee that then gets passed down to be, by the delegate, for providing my support? Also, if I only approve 5 delegates as opposed to 10 - do the 5 that I voted for get twice as much support as if I voted for 10?

I've been doing research and listening to Dan's podcasts, but most of the information is in regards to why BTSX is the best. I'm already sold, I just need an instruction booklet for social norms, etc.

I'm appreciative of any help that can be provided!

Thanks!