If some of the leaked statements about EOS are true, then at the very least we have a roadmap target of potential bandwidth increase and/or a possibly easily accessible new community of potential customers if we play this right.

I don't immediately see this as bad news for bitshares. Dare I say the opposite or am I going to far then?

I think it probably will be good news for BitShares 2.0

I do not think that Dan will have spent another 18months of his valuable time redoing what he achieved with BitShares 2.0.
I'm confident that EOS will benefit BTS 2.0 shareholders.

But what if it doesn't? This isn't Dan's baby anymore and the decision is for the shareholders

Quote from: Permie on May 13, 2017, 03:20:45 pm

Quote from: btswolf on May 13, 2017, 02:44:17 pm

It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.

I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?

But think a little while how well Bitshares has worked so far... From technical standpoint there shouldn't be anything that prevents it being a TOP5 blockchain. But the community hasn't been able to use the technology to grow the ecosystem.

Would it be really a bad thing if a community like that would lose some of the control? What's the point of having control if it's used ineffectively?

The "invisible hand" guides the market, are you suggesting you have forsight greater than an omnipotent all-knowing "entity" that represents the aggregate subjective decisions made by an economic community?

Are you suggesting Redistribution of wealth?
I would hope such an idea is rather unpopular on a forum with history of NAP and austrian school of economic theory.

Where's the proof it's the fault of the current shareholders?
Even if it was their fault, who's to say that a current shareholder would not learn from their mistakes and have knowledge that a newly appointed receiver of stolen goods would not possess?

The bts price would have dumped into the ground long ago and it would not have had the capital to employ or incentivize anyone.
Iif the shareholders of the previous 2 years did not risk their wealth to bring it to fruition, this project would be nothing.
This project IS the shareholders. The community.

The fact that BitShares "Has the potential to be a TOP 5 blockchain" is directly BECAUSE of the investment of the "current" shareholders.
Liquidity, collateral asset value, results of worker proposal voting, testing early product, community discussion participation are all the result of efforts made by the shareholders.

====

The whole essence of this project, the real asset that brings BitShares' monumental growth potential, is in it's founding principles and enablance of freedom.

I should hope that the Freedom from sneaky rug-pulling is included.

Now if you said Andreas Antonopolis your idea would have more merit, at least for the crypto-crowd, but the chances of getting him to conduct such a review are slim to none IMO.

Slim to none?
Surely the likelihood of his acceptance increases with the value of the bounty offered to him?

The question is whether the bounty paid to AA, would result in a net-increase of bts investment due to his followers dipping into the bts ecosytem.

Maybe [AA's price] >> [value of AA's viewers becoming bts customers.]

But maybe [value of AA's viewers becoming bts customers.] >> [AA's price]

====

The alternative is traditional advertising right?
How much does a billboard cost and how many people see it?
What is the value of the message coming from a trusted mouthpiece vs an inanimate billboard?

I'm not sure myself and I am willing to concede that it's not worth paying people like AA. But what if it IS worth it?
How would one calculate it

Thanks for posting @Thom
 

Hello,
Can we discuss the pros and cons of paying a (generally respected by the public) talking head, or financial times journalist, or a famous youtube podcater like Peter Schiff to read over and review BitShares as a product and as an investment.

Using the power of the reserve fund (shareholder controlled investment capital) to make a big impression on famous people so that they can start telling everyone else how great BitShares is.

Potential cons: a bounty could be spinned into 'bts pays journalists to write good stories". Could several mainstream personailities be included? A multi-signature news report?
One journalist could get paid to write the report, and another 2 journalists could get paid a big fee if they find factual fault with it. Anti "fake-news"?
A journalistic version of a 'bug-bounty' paid to coders who can find fault in a companies software.

=========


I suggest that Peter Schiff may be a good candidate for this bounty as he has been an anti-financial-establishment gold-bull predicting market crashes and being laughed at on TV. He shares the same economic views as many of the BitShareholders. He has 173,000 youtuber subscribers and is a SEC registered finance company in the US.
http://www.europac.com/our_investment_strategy

He thinks that Bitcoin is a bubble, maybe he doesn't fully understand what Bitcoin can do, or perhaps he is right.
But I do think he will be able to see the real value in the BitShares network.
He owns a financial consulting firm called "Euro-Pacfic Capital" and runs a fund(?). He encourages his clients to invest in non-US stocks and calls the recent rises in the US stock market to be a bubble. A bubble encouraged by the FED in their desire to stop inflation at all costs.

BitShares has a product, the DEX. Bitcoin's product is itself. (?)

I think he would benefit and appreciate SmartCoin and UIA functionality to monetize his youtube following.

A bounty may seem like an unnessary expense, "what if he would review it for free?"
What better way is there to demonstrate all the functionality of BitShares than by using the worker proposal system to pay them for their time. This "bounty" could be considered a consultancy fee.
Maybe $5000 on the table is enough to get someone worthy to read over an hours-worth of sales-pitch specific to them. It's also a worthy amount to hype-up and talk about in a tagline.

"How the shareholders of "BitShares" paid me $FIVE THOUSAND to read their sales pitch, all organised in a decentralized way without trusting a single bank"

This system could be repeated again and again to buy BitShares' way in front of potential customers' eyeballs. Other cryptocoin communities could be incentivized in this way to port their coin to the bts ecosystem.

The value of this attention from mainstream individuals is up to the shareholders to decide, but I'm sure it's greater than zero.

If possible and legal, I also believe Peter Schiff would be interested in running a fund. A scarce Euro-Pac "PeterSchiff-fund" token that is redeemable at any time for the assets that PeterSchiff chooses to hold in the fund.

It would function like the bit20, except that a single entity would be setting the distribution of assets at their will. The fund-asset-holders want to trust PeterSchiff to make sound investment decisions on their behalf as they arise. The fund would likely contain allocations to bitGOLD, bitSILVER, bitCNY, bitOIL, bitGOLDminingsectorindex, bitINDIAstockmarket, etc, etc

Another possible way for Peter Schiff to add another string to his bow and use BitShares to gain a new revenue stream is: selling up to the minute asset allocation advice, contained within a coin.
This PeterSchiff-fund-advice-coin would be a whitelist only coin. Each coin is non-divisible and is worth $10 (the cost of the current advice). The $10 could be paid to PeterSchiff via debit card (his current payment accepting methods) or www.goldmoney.com who he likes to promote. He could be promoting BitShares too if he understood how it's real wealth and not a ponzi.
Upon reciept of this PeterSchiff-advice-coin asset the customer would be able to read a memo containing what Peter Schiff considers to be the very latest "news" or advice that he reserves only for well paying customers. Everyone else will know about the news tomorrow but to know ASAP costs $10 to buy the asset.

Why BitShares?
Mr Schiff would earn referral income on the accounts he signs up to BitShares in the process of claiming their asset.
He would be able to transmit secret information to customers in an encrypted format.
He would be able to drive his customers on BitShares so that he can also show them how to take advantage of his Fund-Asset and other PeterSchiffEuroCap products that direct 80% of their profitability of transaction-fees to Peter Schiff.

=============

What do you guys think?

Could there be a tester worker proposal bounty of $100, to test how such a bounty might be created?
$100 would pay for some ~mid range finance-youtuber to review and video BitShares I'm sure.

$100 as a test?

Quote

Is bts Martketcap = Smartcoin + UIA Marketcap expected?

I see no reason to expect this, and I believe the match you found is probably a coincidence. Why would ordinary UIAs have anything to do with the value of BTS? In principle, UIAs could have a market cap many thousands of times greater than BTS. There isn't really anything explicitly linking the two.

Smartcoins should be related because they're backed by BTS. Just add up the smartcoin mkt caps.

Total value of all SmartCoins is ~$6.3MM. Hmm..

Are a lot of the large-volume UIA's backed by real assets held in a hot wallet?
For example, a larger volume UIA is OPEN.BTC - which is at least perceptually backed by bitcoin. Is this ENTIRELY irrelvent to the value of bts?
The fact that bts can facilitate services for $3MM OPEN.BTC must have some (even if teeny tiny) effect on the psychological perception of value of the BTS 2.0 network?

The other largest volume UIA's are OBITS, OPEN.ETH, OPEN.MUSE ($17MM).
These UIA's are at least partially backed by real assets, albeit not the bts asset.

Do we know what the total volume of SmartCoins/UIAs was before the recent price increase?

How can it be archived?
Is it decentralized and open source?

Censorship resistant?

This forum is like the boardroom-minutes of the early days of one of the most successful companies ever.
I'd like to know it will still be readable by future shareholders and that the community values of freedom remain unblemished

Would it be possible to do an atomic trade (?) transfer between BTS 2.0 and EOS-BTS2.0 so that 1bts is always equal to and immediately tradeable for 1bts.eos ?

So the success of BTS.EOS pays exactly into BTS 2.0 shareholders?
Even if BTS 2.0 became redundant, an investor who goes AFK from now and for the next 10+ years can always return and view their portfolio without any potentially complicated re-education about EOS?

What I mean to say is that BTS 2.0 shareholders fund and pay for building a BTS 2.0 clone using EOS software, and also code in a 1:1 peg from bts to bts.eos hard coded into the genesis block along with a sharedrop.

Fund it and claim it for BTS 2.0

Is this a technically viable option?