Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
On Nov 5th you can claim it all.
No need to do it every day. The longer you wait, the more you can claim at once.
My wild speculation is that when you funded STEALTH you were unaware of another DAC being concurrently developed. I think it's a possibility you have been given some of the 80% of STEEM they initially mined themselves (& obfuscated in their Bitcointslk announcement) as some form of compensation, hence your multiple post support for a DAC that I would think you would otherwise not be thrilled about in your position.
I am sure! (or something similar)
I can't find myself another explanation
You may have a mean spirited and grasping myopia if you can't find yourself another explanation.
The fact of the matter is that Bytemaster offered to reimburse me from his own pocket the full amount of the investment that I had made into the STEALTH project when he determined that the vulnerability of inexperienced or careless users to losing their funds would be too high and unfixable within the time frame of our original agreement.
I found his offer to be extraordinarily generous and indicative of his honest character and the integrity of his overall vision.
After much consultation with Dan and members of the STEALTH Board, I have accepted a 6 million BTS payment from Dan in return for 800,000 STEALTH. I reluctantly did this because I am in need of funds for other BitShares projects I am contributing to and because I had expected the STEALTH project to be at a level whereby I would be accumulating funds from it by now.
The new Plan:
I will pay 20,000 STEALTH each to two Team Leaders to move forward the implementation of STEALTH (in its new, more limited blinded functionality). Since they are being paid only STEALTH it will be in their interest to maximize the value of STEALTH shares in any way they can come up with (temporary fees, or whatever). This would benefit all holders of the STEALTH FBA.
I will provide the Team Leaders with a significant (but not unlimited) budget from my own pocket to contract the necessary talent to implement development of STEALTH up to an agreed upon functionality.
I will use a percentage of the payment from Bytemaster to help provide liquidity in the new STEEM ecosystem
I will use the remainder of the BTS from Dan, after the above disbursements, to create liquidity in the bitCAD, bitEURO and bitSILVER markets in preparation for hopefully widespread adoption of Ken's POS system and as a marketing tool for my presentation to a centralized exchange to entice them to add BTS, bitCAD and bitUSD (and possibly bitSILVER and bitEURO) to their current lineup of bitcoin and ether, fiat CDN and fiat USD. That way, merchants could move bitCAD or bitUSD they receive from their customers to that exchange and then withdraw fiat CDN or USD to their bank accounts to pay their bills.
I have not been given any position by Bytemaster in the STEEM initiative, and in fact I am, in comparison to many of you, at a disadvantage because I am not a miner. But I can read White Papers and I am a fairly good judge of character - so STEEM has my full support.
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.
While perhaps an isolated and overly suspicious view, posts like the above make me think a lot of Stan's recents threads like this one are actually veiled pitches for Steem which is already controlled by a 'benevolent whale' in form of Steemit. If so I think they should be moved to random discussion.
I'm curious as to what could possibly beat the merger here, what's your #1?
I was always opposed to the merger (even without understanding all the ramifications of it) and the way it was essentially "forced" on the community. And, IMO, it turned out to be in the top 3 or 4 "disasters" for bitshares (probably #2). It totally failed at its stated purpose (which was never adequately explained anyways), it wasn't decided very democratically, it killed a number of funding opportunities, directly and indirectly cost BitShares two core developers (toast and Nathan), brought us another even more ineffective and expensive marketing manager that ultimately led the community to conclude that hiring an effective and reasonably priced marketing manager wasn't possible (something I don't think is true), introduced a lot of unnecessary inflation, and disenchanted a lot of loyal BTS followers.
On a personal level, it cost me some of my BTS ownership, as I wasn't a donator after the first BTS snapshot, since I thought most of the value proposition of AGS was tied to that snapshot. I liked a lot of the other plans in theory, but they were all high-risk long term plays, and I didn't see sufficient experienced manpower and funding to make those teams effective.
Despite the personal cost to me, I have to agree with gamey that changing the rules at this point would make us guilty of the same thing that was done to us, so I'm voting against this plan.
Those balances *are* the property of their owners.
That property interest was the equivalent of a royal grant made by the (former) developers of Bitshares who held merge rights on the Bitshares Github repository. The legitimacy of that act has always been in doubt, because it was never subject to stakeholder vote.
The quid-pro-quo for this gift was the alignment of the developer resources and chains (vote, dns, bitshares). Additionally there was an insight that having multiple dapps on the same chain has synergy and efficiency benefits compared with multiple dapps on different chains. (See BMs discussion on the cost of cross-chain transactions, or consult the Ethereum market cap for reference).
The Bitshares Royalty have now abdicated their position in favor of a new interest (Steem). It is natural to consider if Bitshares can afford to pay 700k/day with no benefit attached, and when the original terms of the arrangement no longer carry any meaning.
?This makes little to no sense to me... and by 'this' I mean supporters of full dilution leaving the ship with virtually no fight (localhost, trust, blablaName-BlaBleName, shanghai-dragon-cny). Those where all big holders deciding to dump after having been voting for all Actual-work-workers before that....
And while I can understand the logic BM expressed (I said understand , not agree) - i.e. "One side have to move to a new chain...eventually."
I find it not a very smart way to do it.... especially in the part of leaving supporters fight the so called "non-diluters"...while big whales have given up and silently leave the ship.
Now we know
BTS holders are still paying off the merger, the intent of which was to prevent the fracturing of development effort/code/chains/community.
Yet this fork receives official blessing and assistance.
It must be April Fools.
Friendly advise. If you believe in BM's new vision (as opposed to his ex-vision i.e. BTS) you better get on board with steem...
I personally find his early ideas far better and consider him more or less lost currently, so I have no interest in this STEEM, but it is just me.
So act accordingly to your take on things in that regard.
1. shentist : 2.000
2. onceuponatime: 1000
3. Pheonike: 500
4. llildur: 174
5. liondani: 600
6. tarantulaz 675
Expected trading pairs?
!!!!!
