106
General Discussion / Re: BitsharesX Marketing Slogan
« on: October 25, 2014, 02:06:47 pm »
With the new creation of BTS, simply:
Bitshares
Join the digital economy
Bitshares
Join the digital economy
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.
107
General Discussion / Re: "BITUSD"=bitUSD too ambiguous?
« on: October 25, 2014, 02:03:30 pm »I've been discussing this issue in this thread...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10383.0
The branding of BitUSD is a major issue IMO. Only the USD pegged asset in Bitshares should be referred to as "BitUSD". All forks should not use this nomenclature as it will cause major confusion (Peertracks I'm looking at you).
I agree. I also think the official spelling should be "bitUSD" not "BitUSD". A minor point, but it goes over much clearer marketing wise. There is much value in getting the small details right. It adds up.
109
General Discussion / Re: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, toolkit and Social Contract (Part 2)
« on: October 25, 2014, 12:37:54 pm »An attempt to restart the original discussion / comments about the Future (not current sharedrop)
I would like to retry start a discussion on the future, the way I see the share drop (not merger) is that we are just creating a bigger DAC, with possibilities of of creating your own Dapps (application in SuperDAC) but continuing having the possibility of Third Party DACs using the bitshares toolkit which should continue to comply with the Social Contract.
DApps and toolkit
Bytemaster has mentioned that in the future we will be having an scripting language like Ethereum, it will be great to start thinking / documenting how to create new DApps and how a third party can benefit from the creation of DApps.
Making the SuperDAC a decentralised application environment or OS. We could start discussion more detailed areas like UX (User Experience) for example one main OS like core applications with multiple applications, light wallets, light applications? etc.
Quote
Third party DACs
There is also the possibility of creating your own Third Party DAC, the only thing that has changed is that BitsharesX - DNS + VOTE and Play will be under the same umbrella (and of course much more in the future). These will have to comply with the Social Contract as before or a new one.
Play will not be part of BTS but will be a third party DAC. It should not carry "Bitshares" designator in it's name, but should be allowed the tag line "powered by Bitshares". For the purposes of clarity of our organizations image, only DACs issued by BTS should be named with "Bitshares...xxxx"
Quote
Social Contract
As noted before the Social Contract should be preserved for third party DACs, but here it could be extended to at least BTS (10%), PTS (10%), AGS (10%). Hopefully this way new and old investors will be rewarded in a multiple DAC scenario and the required compliance of Third Party DACs as the toolkit will significantly more advanced with the combined features.
One of the main goals of these restructuring is to simplify our company image/message. The elimination of PTS and AGS is a big part of this objective. PTS/AGS should be retired or spun-off. If spun off, there should be no assoication with "Bitshares" after the restricting is complete. Bitshares' commitments to AGS/PTS has been fulfilled with the 7% (really 10%) allocation in the new BTS DAC.
Disclosure: I currently hold significant interests in PTS.
110
General Discussion / Re: why not AGS10%+PTS10%+ BTS10% when NEW 3rd DACs honor for
« on: October 25, 2014, 11:21:56 am »Because we need to roll it all together to simplify our story. Our market story is far too complex for the general worldwide market we are positioning for. With the new set up PTS and AGS each will effectively received 1% of the drop of a a much larger potential pie...... (many more partners).
far too complex?
post 11.5 pts snapshot and turn to a picture similar with AGS
not liquid.
honor 10%+10% for repaying their support at the beginning of the BTS development career
PTS/AGS WILL receive 10% of the new BTS DAC.
Breakdown:
7% AGS&PTS
3% VOTE/DNS <-- (( if you were an AGS/PTS owner as of Aug you will received this also))
-------------------
10% TOTAL
111
General Discussion / Re: The community needs a professional community management team.
« on: October 25, 2014, 10:44:36 am »You are right.
BM is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father. I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.
Haha, I thought they were brothers!?
Lol, so did I...... Can someone plz clearify
Stan is dans dad
Oops, So I had this wrong all along! Thanks Fuz
112
General Discussion / Re: The community needs a professional community management team.
« on: October 25, 2014, 10:41:45 am » on Rune's idea. When we should impliment this however is a question for whom ever is watching the budget and the cash burn. I'm sure there are quite a number a demands for the projected/existing reserves which will need to be prioritized. Maybe part of the Marketing budget can be earmarked to address new members and help with better organization(?).I would love to see a forum setup which includes up/down voting capabilities. This will help greatly help to weed through to the important postings and assist to create consensus.
Edit: I second Fuzz' nomination. He's done a great job.
113
General Discussion / Re: The community needs a professional community management team.
« on: October 25, 2014, 10:34:03 am »You are right.
BM is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father. I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.
Haha, I thought they were brothers!?
Lol, so did I...... Can someone plz clearify
114
General Discussion / Re: why not AGS10%+PTS10%+ BTS10% when NEW 3rd DACs honor for
« on: October 25, 2014, 10:25:11 am »
Because we need to roll it all together to simplify our story. Our market story is far too complex for the general worldwide market we are positioning for. With the new set up PTS and AGS each will effectively received 1% of the drop of a a much larger potential pie...... (many more partners).
115
General Discussion / Re: Dear Invictus, we need a social media DAC
« on: October 25, 2014, 10:02:55 am » Definitely something to look into. Maybe we can even leverage our Keyhotee base code(?)
116
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] DISCUSSION: Should 3rd-party DACs honor AGS/PTS?
« on: October 25, 2014, 12:14:27 am »
The Goal is to streamline our (BTS) message and market image. They should drop 20% to BTS and "spin-off" AGS and PTS since there is so much resistance to shutting them down.
By the way I have current investments in PTS.
Edit: Also the "Bitshares" designator should be pulled from the names ofBitshares PTS and Bitshares AGS products. Additionally, third party users of the Bitshares tool kit should not be allowed to use "Bitshares" in their name ether, since BTS does not fully own them and can not control the product quality. Instead they should be given the tag *powered by Bitshares*.
These details are important to create the market clarity we are seeking.
By the way I have current investments in PTS.
Edit: Also the "Bitshares" designator should be pulled from the names of
These details are important to create the market clarity we are seeking.
117
General Discussion / Re: If you need BTSX to finish the registration, Just post your account key here
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:41:55 pm »
setting up a new wallet, please fund:
BTSX8TQ7tXJB1AJwBwqRjiPUeRBD6JssuG8LLFks85R5rGbmxhGxRP
Thanks
BTSX8TQ7tXJB1AJwBwqRjiPUeRBD6JssuG8LLFks85R5rGbmxhGxRP
Thanks
118
General Discussion / Re: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:08:48 pm »I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.
It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.
What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors. That takes precedent over all others. What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
119
General Discussion / Re: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:05:17 pm »I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.
It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.
What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
120
General Discussion / Re: Stan and Dan Great Leaders
« on: October 24, 2014, 07:30:17 am »
All good except for the part where you not-so-subtly compare them to Mao, Lenin, and Bill Clinton, LOL
. Too funny! :-). By the way I do believe that the brothers are doing a great job, and although no one is perfect, I have find their integrity and desire to do right by people unassailable.
