Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yep! Good point! BM shall not scatter at intervals this kind of "uncertain" ideas which impact greatly the market. Contrarily, the quality of wallet needs improving well.
Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.
How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......
Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.
Sorry, in hindsight the title of this post isn't that great. The point is that we all went into it with bad feelings about the whole thing, many people were completely against the proposal and completely against any share dilution. We were as scared/confused/panicky as this entire forum was for the entire day. And then BM basically explained everything clearly and consicely and we ended up all changing our minds. 23 negative skeptics went in to the mumble server, when we were done not a SINGLE person felt negative about it at all, and many of us were talking afterwards about how exciting it is.
If you're a scared or confused investor who don't know what to make of all this, I HIGHLY recommend listening to the mumble recording. I think all your concerns will be met, and you will be satisfied.
that can be changed. just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name. he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks. those who wanted to attend, attended. to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane. just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.
Honestly I would rather there be competition than to have one central DAC where all risk is centralized there. I just don't understand why these ideas are any good.
If you want to compete you and anybody else are absolutely free to fork the BitShares toolkit and do anything. But don't expect Dan and I3 to divert resources supporting the competition.
The point of this proposal is to allow the team to focus their attention on one DAC during this early growth stage and take advantage of Metcalfe's law.
Why not hire more developers as was planned but wasn't followed through with? I would stay away from any dilution as it is a sensitive topic and threshold for which investors in this space watch like a hawk.. that is why the Chinese dumped at the mere proposal of it... so the only other option is to merge without dilution, which may be too deflationary (or not?)... but if you keep things separate.. and have problems down the road with one of them its isolated... and another thing is to hire more devs to concentrate on the individual chains and have BM oversee them all... this way we can have reports of each project and decide which one to concentrate on if any, or work on new r&d to develop further, and the rest of the devs become sustaining engineers fixing bugs or applying concepts already specced out.
My understanding its that BTSX does not have the financing to do it right (execute the full plan) without a capital infusion. Of course all capital infusions should more than pay for themselves so the funding must be discussed and put to a vote.
It's not a question of whether we can do something useful with the funds available.
It's the rate at which we can grow the network effect.
Going slow to stretch the resources is possible. It is also fatal.
Look around the industry. We are in a race.
This is how serious companies win races.
Wow. I am sure glad all 23 of you came to a consensus for the rest of the community.
How about a detailed plot of what is to happen regarding share stake percentages in already snapshot DAC's, how the new DAC's will fit into the ecosystem, what do AGS get, what do PTS get, how will dilution be voted on(since I3 controls a majority stake) and what circumstance will allow dilution, are the other Devs (Toast, Vikram etc.) on board.......
Numbers matter more than hopeful thoughts.
I step away for one day! Sucks that I missed the impromtu Mumble. Thanks for posting the audio.
I didn't see agent86 chime in, did I miss it in the last 20 pages of posts?
This topic was presented as a proposal but it's one that's being pushed pretty hard by BM and Stan. Is it still a proposal?
It has my vote for whatever that is worth. I like the idea of I3 working on one DAC. One blockchain. One product to market. One technology to explain to folks.
The buyout of PTS/AGS is a one time pain point from a PR and investor relations perspective but the rewards will be on going.
When I worked for IBM we found that it would take us three months to change the design of the box we shipped a product in. Clearly I3 under Stan and Dan's leadership do not have that issue.
Lol - Do they mention how they put USD in a wallet by any chance ?It's just like Coinapults Locks but the owners can't run off with the funds and they can't be ceased, etc.
One of the main reasons a unified DAC is so great is that there are many synergies amongst the different DAC functionalities. e.g. the DNS dac can support the bazaar dac, which support the exchange dac. Implementing all three things in the same client will greatly increase user experience and reduce transaction costs and spread.
The Bazaar DAC?
