Quote from: Permie on July 07, 2015, 11:14:05 am

Quote from: MarkLyford on July 07, 2015, 10:05:22 am

New Banx Update Video >> http://banxcapital.com/banx-update-6th-july-2015

Banx in process of migrating to BitShares
Banx lotto new product release
BanxPlatinum release 30th July (Not sure what it is)
Presentation on what Banx is coming soon

Sounds really promising Mark! I am interested but unwilling to identify myself in order to purchase BanxShares.
How are you catering to potential-investors like me?

Can we get an "official" bitAsset that tracks the price of Banx?

Hi Permie

Just go to http://banx.io and buy shares from the market there mate.

and official bitassett will happen when we switch to 2.0

Quote from: newmine on July 07, 2015, 02:31:35 am

Quote from: Murderistic on July 06, 2015, 11:20:29 pm

Though people want to hear more from some partners, it just may not happen as you are really pushing for.  Some are out there running their business in a different manner, do not really talk on forums, etc.  There are many types of businesses, and many models, theirs works for them without the interaction, etc. As a few others have said, it doesn't matter if we hear from every partner. 

When coding in Java, etc - do the devs and Java community expect everyone that uses their technology to report in, etc?  No.

What I was trying to convey earlier was that consumers need not know that this game company has switched to blockchain tech.  For them they may not know for a while, or ever.  That should be ok with us.  If they want to educate their users about how they are securing their assets, securing their data, etc that is for them to decide.  Being able to work with partners and integrate into different types of business outside of the crypto community is the key to mainstream, not focusing on those that understand it, or it's values.

Max, Stan and crew all worked on this quite a bit over the last several months, and all deserve praise on this.  It will be really awesome to see a real business outside of the crypto world with revenues using BitShares to secure their business.

So the shareholder of the project has no right to know who is jumping on board, what their intentions, objectives, incentives, and experience/qualifications are?

Do you see how fast this project is moving away from decentralized with Cryptonomex in control? This is a clear example the Cryptonomex is doing what they think is best for Cryptonomex?

Sorry, but you guys need the crypto community to embrace this first. Decentralized is a core ideal that gave birth to the blockchain. You can tell me all day Cryptonomex won't have control and will work for free for Bitshares despite the opposite being said, but the more centralized you are the harder mass adoption will be.

I think this project, with DPOS and the large stakes held by I3 people put the project very close to the decentralized side of the decentralized/centralized event horizon. With Cryptonomex licensing code for profit, I think you will find the project crossing that threshold and will eventually never see the true light of day, which is Mass Adoption.  And sadly, mass adoption starts within the crypto community. Joe Schmo isn't going to leave Wells Fargo for Cryptonomex Bitshares. I imagine that pitch is somewhat similar to Diner Club salesmen trying to get you to switch from a Visa. -Hey Joe why don't you try a Diners Club card? You can use it at 50 different restaurants world wide. -Uh, I can use my Visa at every restaurant, no thanks.

I3 was supposed to release control over the past year and they half assedly did, but even then no one saw or said there would be a problem with an open, free license such as a MIT. It wasn't until Devs making money and walking away (with their huge stakes) became a factor that all of a sudden licenses were needed so no one could steal the code and profit off it elsewhere.  BM still never answered my question in another thread about did I3 specify that they would work X amount of hours for Y amount of AGS or was it clearly implied that Bitshares would be delivered regardless of how much money was given?

Remember, Satoshi left Bitcoin core and it's done quite alright and finds a way.

I disagree fully.  Look at Abra goabra.com or Xoom.  Paypal is going to get into remittance through Xoom using cryptos from Braintree - Abrra has a dreamteam doing it via blockchain (bitcoin but oh well). 

And adoption will happen not because people understand the technology, but because it comes in a familiar for, like an app they already use or is intuitive.

If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry   

This is some excellent work MrJeans, well done!

I'm glad we have some financial whiz kids around here to balance out this community of techies like me.

Its great to have analysis like this and I'd like to see much more in future regarding BitShares' economics.

I'd suggest some changes in treatment, although its arguable what the optimal treatment is for some of these things.

BTC holders do not receive any transaction fees as revenue as they all go to miners. The dilution is an expense though, resulting in net loss and negative P/E. For BitShares, I personally would treat the fees as revenue, and the delegate pay (dilution) as expenses. So again EPS and P/E is negative.

I'm not sure BTC and BTS are strictly comparable though. BTC is positioning itself as free-market money, so there are other transactional metrics of value to owners, such as those shown here... https://blockchain.info/charts. BTS is positioning itself as a profit-making enterprise, so there are other financial metrics of value to its owners, such as revenue growth, exchange transaction growth, active user growth, and once we have 2.0, compositional metrics such as UIA growth and establishment fees, and referral fee splits.

Interesting idea.. do you think this type of scenario would happen often?