Valid points have been made in this thread as well as the others related to that subject, but the way some of them were formulated made me feel like they were used more to spread FUD than to start an honest and constructive discussion. I find it hard to believe that there is a benevolent motive behind some posts when they are formulated using an aggressive tone and insinuating that Bitshares is getting ripped off by Cryptonomex.
In case you haven't realized yet, I'm deliberately playing the devil's advocate here to force people out of blind faith and get them to evaluate objetively the situation under a more rational perspective and find arguments to counter my diatribe. Ultimately, what I want is people to ask themselves if they support this operation because they trust the core develpers, or if they support this operation because they understand what it's about and believe that it's the right thing to do.
So far, I have read a lot of knee-jerk "this is FUD" reactions but very little in terms of actually addressing the concerns I have raised. If the BitShares community takes the Cryptonomex deal, it must do so because it is convinced after careful and objective evaluation of all aspects of the deal that this is in BitShares' best interest, not because it believes blindly in some of the people involved in the deal. And before people can be convinced, things have to be tested and challenged.
One very important thing that people don't realize is that this time around we are not dealing with the core developers directly but with Cryptonomex, a company funded by private investors which primary objective, as any company, is to produce value for its shareholders. How much you trust Dan and Stan personally is irrelevant because Dan and Stan are not the only persons in command. As founders they certainly have a majority stake at this stage, but they already have to report to and take into account their investors opinion and make decisions that make business sense and put company growth as first priority even if it diverges from their philosphical ideals. They don't have the choice if they want to convince investors to get in for other rounds of funding. And even if they manage to keep their commitment to BitShares while they are majority stake holders, at some point they will exit, sell some of their holdings or let seasonned executives steer the company and lose control of what the company is doing. There is no way to guarantee that Cryptonomex will remain supportive to BitShares, and that's really a big concern considering that under current deal, Cryptonomex is controlling BitShares' life support system. It will take a single board decision for Cryptonomere to pull the plug on BitShares, try to steer it in a different direction or revoke whatever non-legally-binding agreement that has been made initially. If you think this is fud, you are extremely naive and have no experience of the world of business.
Raising concerns is perfectly normal. I find it reassuring that people are asking pertinent and tough questions, particularly when it has everything to do with the survival and success of Bitshares in the long term.
What I'm much les comfortable with is seeing it formulated in a way that suggests that those concerns are facts only to get a reaction out of people. The problem is that anyone who comes here on the forum and read your OP will be left with the impression that Cryptonomex is ripping off Bitshares, which as far as I know is currently not the case. Your accusations will ring as truth to those that don't take the time to go through the whole thread, while your claims are still unsubstantiated. That is FUD by definition.
Back your claims with proofs and I'll be behind you. Ask tough but respectful questions and I'll be behind you.
The business world is definitely not forgiving. But throwing accusations around in the real world without these accusations being verified is called defamation.
Show Posts
