I think we also need an explanation as to how all of the negative aspects of "one chain to rule them all" no longer apply?
Fully agree.
This is not "one chain to rule them all".
(Bytemaster merely mentioned that such claims would be incorrectly made.)
Two or three synergistic chains would be merged.
Other unbelievably powerful features would be added to that mix.
The network effect to maintain one bitUSD would be preserved.
And that's where Bytemaster next focuses his innovative energies.
But...
Most of our current DACs would remain independent.
More third party clones would still be tailored for unique markets.
(We'll be working to help launch one of those most of next week.)
Just a few are stronger together.
And if we don't combine them, someone else will.
Ok so we need to know which dacs/features will be merged and could potentially merged in the future. And why are third party dacs getting help? If the whole point is to focus on only BTS only then third party dacs shouldn't be taking the teams time at all. I don't know any companies that say 'next week we'll mostly be working for a different company' :s.
Edit: Unless the plan is to somehow merge with them too once they've proven themselves?
Edit: just realized this could sound rude, and I don't mean to, but there aren't other dev teams i know of working on other projects in the middle of launching a startup, that itself consists of multiple dacs! Isn't a mega-dac with fingers in multiple industries enough for one team?
The protoDAC model is not abandoned. BTS would become the protoDAC to be honored for 3rd parties who want to leverage our growing network effect and DAC-savvy community. These are third party specialty DACs you will definitely want to own and providing a little consulting to get them spun up is a small price to pay and consistent will all previous promises.
The proposal provides a stronger, simpler story for all the people we are about to bring into the ecosystem for the first time. Before we turn on the vacuum cleaner and start filling the funnels, now it the time to get lean, clean, and simple to explain.
Clearly, re-branding BitsharesX as simply "Bitshares (BTS)" would be extremely useful and advantageous. Achieving a large network effect rapidly is also very critical and is the only way to make Bitshares really future-proof.
But can both of these not be accomplished without a full-blown merger? I think the question in some people's minds is, what was wrong with the previous plan that would have given a bigger role to VOTE but would not involve a merger? Why the abrupt pivot away from that plan? Using a separate chain to help achieve network effects would be more conservative in that it would help contain the risks associated with unexpected outcomes.
Contingency planning seems like a good idea in this rapidly-evolving space. What happens if the "secret sauce" plan doesn't quite succeed as expected (after all, Bytemaster conceded that there is a chance it wouldn't work)? A merger with dilution of Bitshares is like "betting the ranch" or going for broke. It assumes that (a) the network strategy will succeed and (b) a dilutable share base will not somehow become a disadvantage relative to other coins with fixed share base, i.e., Bitcoin or Ripple. My concern is that a full-blown merger of chains unnecessarily places the entire Bitshares enterprise at risk. If the unthinkable happens and things don't go as planned, it would be hard to unmix two chains and re-establish credibility with respect to the promise not to dilute.
From that perspective, wouldn't using a separate chain (either VOTE or even a newly-launched chain) to carry out the growth strategy be the safer route? Such a strategy wouldn't preclude re-branding BTSX as BTS. It also preserves the social consensus not to dilute the original Bitshares X chain, helping to preserve credibility. And, unlike the merger approach, the separate-chain approach would still leave many fallback options if the underlying strategy growth/marketing strategy were to fail.
Show Posts
