Quote from: Shentist on August 04, 2014, 07:17:34 pm

toxic? could you say something more?

Come on. Let him have an opinion. After all, this is HIS project.

If giving up his whole stake (mistake imo) for some complicated distribution scheme was not enough. Now he cannot even name it as he feels is better.

Quote from: Shentist on August 04, 2014, 06:54:05 pm

Quote from: toast on August 04, 2014, 06:47:28 pm

I would like to avoid "BitShares" in the name.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

why? would be good to have it. if bitshares will be big in the future, it will be a big advantage to have bitshares in the official name.

IMO the bitshares brand is currently toxic and I think DNS will help it more than bitshares will help DNS.

I would like to avoid "BitShares" in the name.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Think of it as an upfront allocation that is slowly paid out over time to the developers so that the developers cannot dump

think of it as an upfront application for the community retains the right to change developers rather than mean committed to oneself developers

There is a hardcoded limit just like bitcoin. 

Think of it as allocated to the developer and the developer decides to give it to a delegate. 

Think of the initial delicates as a development team. 

If investors invest according to the total share supply at the end of the day then there is no dilution for them. 

There is nothing unpredictable other than the fact that there might be less dilution then they expect

Think of it as investors have an opportunity to direct the development team by buying in And making a change this in turn gives the investors an opportunity to increase their ROI. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk