You guys.... I need to log-off this train wreck for the day.
In the end I will never be too pissed because BTSX definitely gains from this and I have a large stake in BTS. However that was never my interest and I'm not sure we couldn't have just added dilution to BTSX and went from there unchanged.
I hope one guy isn't sitting somewhere whispering ideas into someone's ear and then they end up becoming self-fulfilling due to the way this forum/social hierarchy works.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. Everyone knew the original plan was to develop multiple DACs, however a majority invested heavy in BTSX rather than the ecosystem as a whole, then freaked out when they realized there might be some competition in the marketplace (even without any actual details that anyone was actually going to eat their lunch). This action impressed on BM that this was going to be an ongoing gripe and headache unless he catered to his majority investors and focused on the single DAC.
All those heavily invested in BTSX already had some very vested interest in pushing for focus of development since they had a large portion of their money backing a single horse.
Now of course you saw this very quick push for "consensus" and everyone painted on their plastic smiles to pretend like going back on all the core principles of Bitshares and it's proposed ecosystem was somehow a good thing to help save the tanking BTSX price.
Most people invested heavy in BTSX so of course you are going to see a majority of the community pushing along whatever benefits them the most.
While being personally disappointed in how all this went down, BM was left with the choice to stick to the original road map and alienate and piss off (however irrational that reaction was) the majority of his investors or take a very radical course to placate them, maybe lose the minority and stop similar crises in the future.
I think it's much simpler than that: it's not possible to focus on building multiple companies all at once. Focusing on launching one successful company is hard enough as it is; even Elon Musk couldn't focus on 5 companies (that compete with each other!) at the same time.
Oh really? The timing between the VOTE thread upheaval and the merger proposal shortly after was a total coincidence? A few short weeks ago BTSX was supposedly ready to take the world by storm. BM even stated that the "secret sauce" and other conditions relevant to the successful prospects of BTSX remain unchanged, but now all of a sudden we find out that in fact BTSX has been hanging on the brink of oblivion and this merger is the greatest thing ever to come save our DACs from imminent collapse? Please tell me you aren't this naive.
It's been all sunshine and butterflies for months with no whisper of merging DACs but all of sudden it's some dire situation that has to be done NOW before anyone has time to think about it much. Either I3 have been candy coating the situation all along OR pretending the merger is the savior of everything Bitshares is a spin tactic to make the transition more palatable and get the transition done faster with less dissenters. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
BM wasn't even running all the DACs anyway, he stated many times toast was in charge of DNS with others planned to champion the other DAC ideas.
...BTSX isn't dead, it can and will grow naturally like Bitcoin. It raised enough funds to get built, deployed and maintained..... the original plan was assuming faster more viral growth due to the massive advantages over the 3 players ahead of us (BTC, LTC, and Ripple)....
The original plan was to fund many DACs that would compete against each other... there were expected to be many BTSX clones each trading different assets and all having at least one BitAsset in common (likely BitUSD or BitGLD).
The original plan was for me to work and help bootstrap / design these other DACs to have a robust ecosystem.
The only thing I see now is that the later DACs have learned from BTSX and thus people are starting to see that they might be a threat...
I am first and foremost loyal to those who have given so much and placed so much faith in me, especially during our darkest hour in the months from March until July. ..
Just 2 days ago BM is saying that BTSX will be fine (with no merger) and that his concern is the perceived threat from BTSX holders.
I'm honestly not even trying to fight the merger proposal anymore, it's obviously a lock and going to happen. Further I'm willing to concede it might even be the correct course of action in the long run. I just don't like to see people revise history for their own purposes, especially so those that are responsible for the investment product itself.
It's obvious investors shouldn't invest based on the stated goals of the technology and need instead to invest based on the team behind the technology (which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I do believe there is a lot of talent pooled in the 3I team). Considering this I think it's especially important that their message is clear and doesn't appear to be conflicting or improper.
Community members towing the same phony line isn't doing anyone favors either in my opinion.
Show Posts
