Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 16, 2015, 09:46:57 pm

Its fine if yield goes away.  It can be re-introduced with loans and leveraging like in Bitfinex.  I'm sure that's the aim.  And yield in this matter would be much larger.

exactly

Loans, leverage and credit creation are the keys to the rocket ship.

When integrated into the BTS platform there will be literally nothing on the planet that can compete... and no more powerful force for social reform.

Decentralized finance on a global scale.

I like this; going in the right direction. 

I've a fairly good grasp of what BM is proposing and am on the fence - I'd like to see Arhag weigh in on this.

Great update, thank you.

Something something greedy fearful something something.

Quote from: merivercap on April 07, 2015, 09:05:26 pm

Yeah  I'm with svk, Ander & Fuzzy on the 'merger' subject. 

I started following BTS after the 'merger' but it was always a puzzle why it was necessary.  Building a conglomerate seemed contrary to the ethos of decentralization and also business competition.  The 'merger' was spun as the creation of a  'SuperDAC' and I understand putting everything in a positive light for marketing, but I think from a business perspective it would be good to reflect on the 'merger' to decide if it was worth it.  It was really just an acquisition of Vote & DNS for 20% of the company post-merger.   Was that a good decision? 

I don't think so.  We're a long away from the days of vertical integration and monopolization as Rockerfeller did with the oil industry  Most businesses in the last couple decades have seen the value of spin-offs, breaking up supply chains to focus on core competencies.  Big businesses with a lot of cash acquire smaller companies to stifle competition, but it decreases the overall value-creation process.  In this case the acquisition is odd because it looks more like a startup acquiring two businesses that are entirely unrelated.  It's like Facebook in the early days trying to acquire an early-stage McDonalds and early-stage Exxon.  (I know, I know there is tech overlap, but I'm trying to make a point.)  Devs could have worked on multiple projects and had two sources of income.   The value of Vote, DNS and BitsharesX would be valued much more highly as separate companies than as a MonopolyDAC. 

I'm very excited about Vote & DNS, but I think they're much more valuable on their own.  Besides shouldn't a voting blockchain be separate from an asset exchange blockchain?  Why add confusion to different consumer demographics? 

The reason why I discuss this rather than let it get swept under the rug is we can always reverse actions.  If there's eventually a demand to spin-off Vote & DNS down the road I'll be in favor.   Bring the total shares back to 2 Billion and spinoff Vote & DNS with a % equity in DAC shares.  Total combined marketcap of all three would be much greater and each DAC would focus on core competencies. 

The funny thing with all this is the original thread was complaining about delegate pay when I think more BTS should be spent on delegate pay for everything, especially for faster and quality core development.  Imagine taking 100 million of the 500 million BTS used to acquire  Vote & DNS and using it to fund faster & better tech development.  The DAC delegate pay model was a core advantage over other ecosystems that struggle to make ends meet.   Why don't we use more delegate spots to double the salary of developers or get new developers to help?   Feeling like there is not enough funds for development is self-induced.  Heck we could have used all 500 million BTS we used to purchase Vote & DNS to fund Bitshares development over time instead.   That would have been better use of dilution.

This ^ about says it all.

Am I the only one outside of the core devs that understands BTS, VOTE and DNS are the holy trinity?

Together these things form and incomprehensibly powerful tool that can change the course of human history.

Separate they are a passing novelty in a far flung and rarely visited corner of the internet.

The devs, particularly BM, are hunting much bigger game than most folks think.

Bitshares is not about bitAssets or banking...

Will vote - can the core devs please step in as well?

Dilution is not driving the recent price movement.

The lack of dev hype has caused the speculative crowd to divest for more shiny, exciting ventures.

Devs have completed the funding and discovery phases and are now in the implementation phase.

This is all part of the natural cycle of a startup - the difference is that BTS has become publicly traded waaaay before any traditional startup even thinks about an IPO.

Platforms like Snapchart, Whatsapp, Facebook etc. all get funding, do discovery, implement, release, revise and then... maybe... go IPO.

Crypto is a whole different world.

Investors need to understand they have invested in pre-release beta software that is right now being hammered into a release candidate.

How much is beta software worth minus all the hype?

Less than beta software with all the hype.

The recent and ongoing share price decline is normal and expected.

I follow this project closely and am more excited than ever at the prospects.

Risk to return is decreasing by the day and I feel the ROI for early investors is going to be staggering.

Do your due diligence, decide whether you believe in the core tech and core devs, and then dollar cost average into your stake.