Hey,

I've requested a business associate of mine to take a look at this.
He supplies my start-up with a steady source of Bitcoin and is looking to diversify into ATM's.
He is a biz grad from a top tier college in America and has been working along with my team towards tapping opportunities within the emerging crypto-sphere. He is currently in Chicago and has told me he will look into this once he's back, which should be around Tuesday.



P.s - I personally don't believe ATM's alone would bring in mass adaption of bitshares, but yes - it would be a factor.
Regards

ATMs are only one channel to get fiat into crypto, and I strongly believe that if Bitshares has several funnels to bring in the customers, either KYC compliant or not, things will be great. Even with just something like OTC trades website like localbitcoins (which someone could name localbitshares) dedicated to Bitshares and bitAssets, that's would be a very nice start.

Hi 55,

This seems to be a very interesting project!

I'm very curious to know more about certain aspects of this project though.

- How many developers do you have on your team?
- Any "known" forum member on your team?
- What will the users be able to do exactly with you platform upon release?
- In which country(ies) do you plan to launch first?
- Are you partnered with banks to be an on/off ramp or will it be more like an over-the-counter exchange (like localbitcoins)?

Thanks!

It is in our best interest to have a working, slick and easy to use wallet, and Moonstone's offering is exactly that. It might even increase user experience and adoption significantly if the development is done properly.

If it benefits other projects, then good for them. But why should we deprive ourself of the benefits it could bring us just to avoid others from benefiting from it? I would understand the concerns if they were offering it to a direct competitor to Bitshares, but it's not the case.

And you know what? It can only help Bitshares if the Moonstone wallet is used for several projects. Because all the new users that are brought in the ecosystem by the other projects (like PeerTracks) will be exposed to Bitshares because of the Moonstone wallet, thus increasing the probability of getting new Bitshares users. And the conversion will be very easy, they will already have the Moonstone wallet installed. They will only need to buy Bitshares or any assets, and bam! One conversion done.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Quote from: profitofthegods on May 14, 2015, 02:19:03 pm

Bytemaster replied to my PM saying that Bitshares.org will be getting re-worked with some additional content in the not to distant future. He accepted my offer to help with the optimization once they've done that.

Those kind of replies are all too common. Please have BM clarify exactly *who* has been assigned to the task of redesigning the website, *who* is the expert assigned to the seo/sep, *what* exactly (details) will be done to the ui/ux and by *when* it will be completed and posted online for approval by the community before its launch.
 
I do not have time for word games so please have him report on these details, thank you @profitofthegods

In the past BM was commenting daily on all the threads he felt he could add his input. It changed, because what he said was constantly interpreted in various ways (language barrier, FUDers taking advantage of the lack of clarity, etc.) and caused massive panics and severe issues. He learned from that, and now he very seldomly intervenes on the forum, and when he does he reveals very little, except when he wants the community's input on various propositions. Everything that is said by him or the team on the forum has now to be vetted.

So from what he hinted several times in the last few weeks, it appears there's a global plan that is currently being worked on behind the scenes, and we should learn about it in the next month or so. Is it BS? I don't know, but I'm willing to take the bet that it isn't. My bet is that he wouldn't do the same mistake twice, hyping the crowd by hinting to big things and then not delivering.

So before you realize you've been working on something that has already been worked on by the dev team and that what you've done is only duplicate work, do you think it would be a good idea to validate with the team that you're putting your efforts in the right direction? (If you haven't already done it, that is)

I understand and like your sense of urgency, and I've told you so in a different thread. But getting focused on the right priorities is as important as getting the work done.

If you've already been in contact with BM or the team and your questions haven't been answered clearly, just disregard this post lol

In any case, keep up the good work! 

Quote from: liondani on May 12, 2015, 06:24:13 pm

Quote from: toast on May 12, 2015, 06:04:54 pm

We've been pretty clear that peertracks will not be all public in the way bitshares is, and are giving everyone an opportunity to get out (at higher than the crowdsale price no less) if they don't like that

is this FUD ? Any reason for doing this?
I really can't believe what I am reading! 

It's because there's no point answering to huge groups of stakeholders we don't know who only care about short-term returns and generally act like a hivemind. We would rather start at a low price and have real growth than to have a huge speculative market with a potential for big losses for everyone.

I understand your point of feeling not so entitled to give explanations to people you don't know (and who might only be interested in short term profit, but that's not the point). But in my perspective, the point is that without those people you don't know (IPO donators) that contributed to the Bitshares Music pre-sale, there wouldn't be any money for the project to lift-off.

This project is very secretive by nature, and there are a lot of unknowns about the actual Bitshares Music model. What I want to point though is that revealing some details about this model without revealing the "secret sauce" wouldn't harm the project so much, and shareholders wouldn't feel their concerns/questions are dismissed. If you were dealing with VC or angel investors you would have to disclose MUCH more details. I'm not asking to see the blue prints of the whole model, just a courteous answer when IPO shareholders have questions, because without them the project wouldn't have the funds it currently does. And a courteous answer can be "We cannot disclose that information just yet".

You even mentionned that Bitshares Music isn't the name the Music blockchain will officially have. What will it be? Is that part of the big secret too or is it not just defined yet?

Also, I understand Peertracks development is being done in parallel to the Bitshares Music blockchain, but that it is privately held by a few shareholders. Up to now, what percentage of the crowdfunding money went into developing Peertracks compared to the music blockchain? Maybe @cob might be able to answer this one. I know this question have already been asked, but IIRC there wasn't a crystal clear answer. That answer matters, because my initial understanding when I donated to the pre-sale was that the money was to be used to develop the blockchain, not some privately held front-end.

In the end, I won't be bitching around if the added value Peertracks gives to the music blockchain is significant enough to compensate for the fact Peertracks used part of the crowdfunding for development. It's an ecosystem, and without the growth of Peertracks there won't be any growth for the music blockchain. All I want to do is point to the fact that we don't know.

Lack of transparency can easily lead to speculation.

Too much transparency is worst, it creates panic.

Well, I guess just enough would be best

I noticed the ball didn't get rolling on many Bitcoin businesses until the price started going high enough to make an older generation of Bitcoin loyal wealthier.

If Bitshares takes off in a significant way, my guess is that many early adopters/hodlers will want to diversify and become venture capitalists in some way.

This will open the money valve for 3rd party developers who seeks funding for their startup powered by Bitshares. It's a virtuous circle. The higher the market cap, the more there will be visibility and funding in the ecosystem to promote growth and usefulness, and greater the adoption will be, increasing the market cap...

The end game is not the market cap, it's the product. But without the first, it will be difficult to fund businesses that will enhance the user experience for the whole ecosystem. Being able to pay for an army of workers with very limited dilution will make the difference.

Just hope we're not the target of a P&D as well as the other coins involved.