Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC. Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets. I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required. Your proposal shows clear impatience. Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, just advising people to get off is very popular round here.
All is swell.
If not, sell.
Now that actually turned out to be fantastic investment advice.
Thanks for the feedback though.
Option 1: Unfortunately development costs money, we've largely run out of it. A team with $1 million+ in development funds and low overheads developing a BitAsset competitor could potentially be much more competitive than BTS accessing 15k a month via dilution that has a merger draining value too. I think that's the most likely competitor. I don't think there's any price pumping there, it's just maths, business and common sense.
Option 2: Is a lot about brand image, correct. Believe it or not, it's critical for a successful business. There's also the fact that a DAC accessing 15k via dilution per month and with up to a 100k per month drain on the share price is not much more competitive than a no dilution DAC & less popular. A new brand may have a higher chance of long term success as well as the potential for lucrative short term gains. I believe a no dilution DAC, valued at $80 million like BTSX was with fees in the $0.02-0.05 can certainly be self sustaining, competitive and not some sort of price pump.
Option 3: Is about discussing a range of big changes to BTS. The time to do that is not when BTS falls to $10 million and everyone is panicking but before. If the merger doesn't add value and is overly expensive and we're below $10 million, yes I'd consider cancelling it. If dilution for non developers is not adding value, getting the share supply below 2.5 Billion and only employing developers (& paying them more) may be worth a try. If there are options like revenue sharing that could lighten the burden on shareholders and introduce genuine free market competition into BTS as opposed to who is the best at getting votes, then yes consider that too . All of these could potentially improve BTS at a foundational level and would not be price pumping imo.
The new BTS may well be successful just as it is. Well done to all the people who believe in the fundamentals and are working diligently to make it a long term success and make positive contributions even in the face of up to 80% losses. Apologies for investors like me that tend to be overly critical in a long and sustained price decline.
Thought leaders in this space are beginning to talk about how native b/ch token value is only correlated with community. (B/chs with bitassets shake that up a bit, but not completely).
If it's true that value comes community, then a fork with more money will need to buy their own community, which will be extremely expensive. It's possible to do, but community builds from other things than money, such as 3rd party businesses. Because of the cost of community, bitshares will be very difficult to compete against via forking and VC funding, esp considering further difficulty in setting up BitAsset markets, copying existing UIA markets and cloning 3rd party businesses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Show Posts
