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.
Ron Paul
I love how the forum has calmed down in the past few days.
For the most part, people are talking courteously, the way they would face-to-face, not hiding behind a keyboard lobbing grenades.
Every once in a while, when I am tempted to criticize the efforts of others, I like to get out President Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote and recalibrate my attitude...QuoteIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem. Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys. If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place. Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.
There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it. Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.
Has nobody else noticed how bizarre Adam's proposal is? To give $1m to the most profitable DAC? If any DAC is even remotely successful, its devs will (if they set it up right) make hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would Invictus waste a piddling $1m five years from now on a company that will be worth billions? The AGS funds should be invested up front to give DAC devs a leg up right now, when speed is absolutely critical. Long-term bounties for successful DACs would be an egregious waste of funds.
It's impossible to say how much in dollars any DAC will make. Bitshares might not even make hundreds of millions of dollars. If cryptocurrency catches on then you could be right but who is going to take the risk without incentive?
I recommend we use outcome based rewards but I don't think it should be in dollars but in shares. Why are we measuring in dollars?
A while back I mentioned the need to set up a system to reward theoretical progress. We should be rewarding people who produce academic articles and we should have an academic journal for decentralized autonomous networks.
Since the money exists to reward theoretical progress we should do more to encourage it. A lot of knowledge on how to do stuff is missing and just having programmers isn't enough. So why not an academic journal where ideas, new algorithms, concepts, and overall scientific research progress on these subjects can be encouraged, rewarded, and made accessible?
Stan if you are reading this: PLEASE ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY.
Knowledge must be decentralized. Incentivize the process of discovering knowledge.
Attract the curious researchers, the student-hacker, the dreamer, and reward. Let's actually create a theoretically detailed knowledge base together.
If you want I can give you the details on how to decentralize the process. I have had plans to start a website based on this but since I own Angelshares now I can help explain how to reward the generation of knowledge in a decentralized way. In my opinion we absolutely require at least one academic journal in the world on the subject of the DAC.
Thank you, bitbro! Half the freaking postings around here are from this Adam guy, who clearly does not feel like it's a good fit for him. He complains that his time is 150% committed and he doesn't have time for anything, yet he comes back here again and again to waste the time of these developers, who keep patiently responding to his crud. Move on already. How many times do you keep calling a girl who clearly isn't into you?
Adam has clearly shown to be deeply committed and invested to making this whole DAC idea work. He has written, conversed, and added a ton of value to this space. What have you done besides shit on his work and say that he is wasting his time. Honestly if he isn't involved or has walked away, then that is a strong indication that we should leave as well.
they may be good programmers, but the messaging is just...it's just really bad. everything seems like something i might have come up with while sitting in my parent's basement while at home from a college break. or it kind of reminds me of the early days of the internet when the guy who kind of knew HTML would come up with the design for your website and you'd have these spinning GIFs, or unnecessary frames (when html 3.0 came along), and everything just looked silly in general.
for $50,000, you could hire a legit marketing firm to do meaningful branding.
as it stands, they would be better of just not even trying. the whole image is cheapened
in this example, a shirt that said bitshares in courier font and nothing else would be far better than anything in that picture.
I don't always agree with you Adam, but do so more often than not. And I mostly like and am enthusiastic about this proposal of yours.
Now you will say that I am "too close" to this because I am a larger AGS holder than PTS holder, and you would probably be right. But in an attempt at helping me to become more objective, would you please extrapolate upon your reasoning as to why both PTS and AGS should not both be awarded a 10% stake in applicants' entries to this contest? (I do agree that Invictus should not be eligible to enter).
It seems to me to be difficult/impossible to separate out what benefit would be received by applicants tangentially from AGS funding. And therefore we AGS holders would be to some extent subsidizing PTS holders.
Invictus has specified that AGS is only supposed to be honored if AGS funds are used to develop the software. Otherwise the requirement is only PTS, unless I misunderstood? I am attempting to make as few requirements as possible while honoring "the deal".
Allright. In the interests of maximizing benefit to the overall project I set aside any perceived slight unfairness and give your proposal my enthusiastic endorsement. Minimum Viable Product and all that
Adam, I have greatly valued your amazing contributions to the cryptocurrency movement. I feel that I have also made significant contributions in my own way (for instance, being the first large donor to Armory so that Alan could quit his day job and give full time to its development - long before his round of Angel funding where Trace Mayer and others got in on expectation of personal gain).
LetsTalkBitcoin is a cornerstone in my opinion, and brought me to bitshares.
Now comes the "however" (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?)
You edited the post that I responded to after my response.
I responded as I did, despite misgivings, because you are a VIP and very influential in the community. I therefore attempted to generate some consensus and mollify you as I was able.
But now I no longer think that I understand your point of view or motivation. I am finding Stan's responses on your other (related) thread to be thoughtful and convincing and valid attempts to answer your concerns - though obviously not what you want to hear. Have you acquired a pre-conceived notion of how it should be with the result that you don't hear responses that don't fit your formula?
By editing your post after I had responded, it looks as if I am agreeing to it in its entirety. That is not true.
I think that your contest has merits, but I think contestants for the prize should be limited to those who honor both PTS and AGS holders with minimum 10% Otherwise, let those who want to contribute to a prize for this contest do so.
I wasn't deceived when I donated my PTS and BTC to angelshares. Are you thinking that you were?
QuoteQuoteIt's not just Invictus. Yes, we have a responsibility to vet anything that uses AGS funds, but as we said in the Shark Tank newsletter article:QuoteBring us your business plan, win the hearts and minds of our community, and get past the industry leaders on our Panel of Judges at our Las Vegas Beyond Bitcoin Summit and you could win our support in incubating your new company.
You view it as "begging" but I spent my whole career writing proposals to funding sources of all kinds. Such sources don't just throw money in the street. They all have a process to make sure the money is used effectively.
We have defined a good-faith process that involves everybody as described in that article. It offers to put funding in the hands of those who need help to get started based upon a public merit-based competition.
Nothing stops people from pursuing other models. This is the one we have developed so far and we will keep refining it.
We don't believe people with the resources to develop and deploy a DAC need any more incentive to do so. A successful DAC is its own reward.
We choose to help those who don't have the resources by removing obstacles in their paths.
You spent your whole career writing proposals, and you want to bring the legacy, bottlenecked system into Invictus? Way to build the new paradigm
Adam,
We obviously disagree on what constitutes responsible management of resources. We have promised to use our best judgement to build the industry for the long term. I outlined all the factors that drive our decision making process here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3394.msg42988#msg42988
You consistently ignore most of these factors while you lobby to gain control over funds that were donated as a vote of confidence in our offer to manage them responsibly.
I would encourage you (or someone you nominate) to offer your services as an alternative Industry Developer with a different vision. Tell everyone how you will manage their contributions and solicit their donations.I think it would be healthy to give people the option of several developers
each with a different vision and management style.
I would happily support you or your like-minded nominee in the role of Industry Developer. We might even post your angel address right beside ours and give you your own page to explain how you would use other people's funds differently. This would let everyone vote with their donations - the sincerest form of expressing a preferred approach.
I think two or more cooperating Industry Developers each pursuing alternative approaches would be healthier for the community than the current insurgent process of sewing dissatisfaction and discord within the community. That only hurts all the stakeholders here and drives away newcomers before they even get a chance to understand the potential.
What do you say? Truce?
Then I am a man of faith. Interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Faith is easy when you pick a team and become blind to anything but what the association can bring you. As an investor the last thing you want to do is pick a team.
If you're joining a religion, go for it.
As an investor one of the first things I want to do is pick a team.
The easiest example, though not entirely appropriate to this instance, is "franchises". One team in a very good location can have miserable results with a proven franchise concept. Let it be sold and another team take over, and the same location, same concept, can be wildly successful.
A bad team can run ANYTHING into the ground.
But Bitshares is not a franchise. It is original (the original vision which, if successful, can produce something akin to (NOT "equivalent to") franchise opportunities.
It seems to me that the very purpose of this bitshares forum is to further the interests of PTS and AGS (BTS) holders. In what way has Invictus ever transgressed that purpose? Some other prominent posters however, have, to my thinking, clearly posted at cross purposes. They are, to put it succinctly, placing ads for their own projects rather than contributing to the purpose of this forum. This can be subtle (Charles Hoskinson, Barwizi, etc) or outright blatant (see the scam ads in OFF TOPIC).
