The only thing that worries me is that I didn't sell any bts when it was pumped in March so I can buy back these cheap shares again now.. so I am a bit sad again.. and I am a bit annoyed that some people here pump the price, sell high and dump hard to the rest of us the bag holders.. but I guess that is normal in crypto..

My blind trust in bitshares is also hurt..I feel I have been fooled many times in the last 3 years by people's decisions, false promises, pumps and then huge endless dumps..I don't see the light in the end of the tunnel anymore so clearly..

it seems most of this community is not worried of bytemaster leaving bitshares, but i am.

the public face left bitshares and worked month before on a new project.

why does no one from the left developers see the need to post something to assure the community they are working on bitshares?

why does CNX not post an official statement? So can everyone from them do what they want or what is happening?

At the moment i have near 0 confidence, because the last month bytemaster and his insider circle sold BTS and building something new, without
this community. So probably he has now more value in his portfolio and i am has much less, because i didnt sold BTS.

I remember something in the past this community got a promise "10% everything we build in the future", but with mergers no one wanted and how it
seems today, were not needed, everything changed.

where is the "follow my vote" guys they got a share in BTS for using bitshares. I didn't see them using bitshares, the are using graphene technology but
where does this take bitshares? at the moment it looks like they got  bitshares for nothing.

so i would like to encourage every left party from CNX, coders or FMV to stop by and post what they want to do at their response i will consider what to
do.

cheers
shentist

Quote from: dannotestein on April 16, 2016, 11:35:28 pm

I was always opposed to the merger (even without understanding all the ramifications of it) and the way it was essentially "forced" on the community. And, IMO, it turned out to be in the top 3 or 4 "disasters" for bitshares (probably #2). It totally failed at its stated purpose (which was never adequately explained anyways), it wasn't decided very democratically,  it killed a number of funding opportunities, directly and indirectly cost BitShares two core developers (toast and Nathan), brought us another even more ineffective and expensive marketing manager that ultimately led the community to conclude that hiring an effective and reasonably priced marketing manager wasn't possible (something I don't think is true), introduced a lot of unnecessary inflation, and disenchanted a lot of loyal BTS followers.

On a personal level, it cost me some of my BTS ownership, as I wasn't a donator after the first BTS snapshot, since I thought most of the value proposition of AGS was tied to that snapshot. I liked a lot of the other plans in theory, but they were all high-risk long term plays, and I didn't see sufficient experienced manpower and funding to make those teams effective.

Despite the personal cost to me, I have to agree with gamey that changing the rules at this point would make us guilty of the same thing that was done to us, so I'm voting against this plan.

These undesirable side effects may be true, but people always leave out worse consequences of not doing anything.

We were out of funds to work on BitShares.  We were obligated to stop at BTSX and start working on the other chains with the remaining post 2/28 funds.  This would have resulted in multiple unfinished chains, none of which were likely to generate income before funding ran out and the team would have had to disperse in search of work.

The decision was made to get one really solid chain working and producing income before diluting dwindling resources into other new starts which, as you say, were much longer term plays - too long to solve the problem of keeping the team together.

That might have worked except for a down draft in crypto at the time which was generally interpreted as caused by the merger leading to a bigger downdraft caused by blaming the merger.  So BitShares wound up unable (or unwilling) to pay its developers.  We had to invent Graphene and now Steem to keep going. 

The one constant driver that we have always had to face is how to put food on the table while continuing to be available to support the prime vision.

Every single step forward along the way has been influenced by that fiscal reality.   If you are willing to ignore that constraint and imagine some parallel universe where dev paychecks don't matter, then sure, there were lots of more popular paths we could have taken.

Quote from: btswildpig on April 16, 2016, 03:42:29 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 16, 2016, 03:14:44 pm

Quote from: gamey on April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pm

End it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?

The latter, stiff the people (like you and me) who have shares still vesting. (Though I wouldn't say we all signed up for the vision, DNS/BTSX/PTS lost millions of dollars in value at the time & it was pushed through with very little voting stake.)

It's costing BTS a fortune per day and not achieving many of the original outcomes, so I would vote to end the merger even though I have a few hundred thousand BTS still vesting. Though it's obviously up to others (who have already received 70% of their vesting shares) and other BTS shareholders if they think that's in the best interest of BTS overall.

I think it will hopefully that mean we can spend a lot more on our valuable developers and development without impacting the BTS price as much, the combination of which should make BTS more valuable.

what could this possibly accomplish ? Another demonstration that "BTS would move heaven and earth to feed their few developers at the expense of all/some investors" ?
Though I hate the merger .... I can't support this .

That's ok, it's a controversial topic and may not be in the best interest of BTS overall. 

You don't have to vote to spend more on development if you don't want to, that's your choice.

But the merger is costing 700k a day, 5 million BTS a week. Do you think BTS can afford spending 50-60 BTC a week on it, even though it's not achieving many of the original outcomes?

Quote from: tonyk on April 16, 2016, 07:25:06 am

Being a Mexican (at heart), I am very curious to see how this BTS price game plays out....
The gringos accuse the Chinese of trying to destroy their baby ( BTS)...while much the same gringos are selling like crazy (at least 200+ mil BTS in the last 2 mo. alone, imho).

All at the same time "the Chinese crazy anti dilutors" have 5x more to lose in any significant bts price drop... so they better buy before the gringos push the price to 200 sat territory.

Why buy before 200 if it were to go that low? lol...
And how do you know the gringos were selling millions of bts?
As far as the chinese having some bigger whales, that is entirely possible, but then again i would imagine it is partially because the devs worked for lower than market wages considering their skill level. But i may be missing some important facts 

I still personally believe in bitshares and the community. Ill be very surprised if it ever goes to 200 sats (unless btc price doubles when block reward halves).  But i must admit im a bit biased.

1 worker left, all the supporters moving and saving their investment out of Bitshares. I think we should probably thank BM again, that now
the none deliution fraction is by far the biggest one.

if i wouldn't have a large stack of my investment in Bitshares i would just buy popcorn and watch this tragedy.