Quote from: delulo on January 23, 2014, 07:40:26 pm

Agree with regard to invictus and bytemaster! Good distribution is key to success in DACs and this is only possible if the team focuses on the long term and not the quick bug which in the end is way more profitable anyway (exponential growth...).

Edit:
And with respect to AGS/PTS value something has to be considered that has not been mentioned yet that much. With PTS you are holding a tradable asset that can rise in value in itself which is not the case for AGS. Maybe (what do you think?) bitshares has more potential to grow in price compared to PTS but by buying AGS one is giving up an asset with value in itself. With PTS you have both Bitshares and PTS. With AGS you only have Bitshares after the release... The only way people can get in with future invictus DACS is by PTS which will make it rise lots....
What do you think?

I guess you can synthetically make your own AGS, if you had extra money you can temporarily part with.  If you get X more AGS per PTS donated, just buy extra PTS to make up for the difference.  As soon as Bitshares X is launched, sell the extra PTS you purchased.  Now you have the same amount of Bitshares and you still maintain your liquid asset.  The cost will be the potential loss on the extra purchased shares.  It's also possible it could work out in your favor.  A successful launch of Bitshares will probably cause a significant rise in the price of PTS.  Is there something I'm missing here?

Quote from: delulo on January 22, 2014, 01:40:48 am

Quote from: GodsCreation on January 22, 2014, 01:05:33 am

Yeah you're all right, what I meant was people in general who sign up, post nonsense and then never show up again leaving a bad impression for others who might just stumble on that particular post. Of course criticism is good but for a first post it's kinda odd.

You are right in that respect. I dont see a practical way to solve this... You cant close the community. This would be against any open source / decentralization imperative...
A paid moderator / PR guy would make sense in my opinion.

The challenge I face is that while many people understand or have faith in the designs of BitShares X, even my closest partners have a hard time defending and teaching it.  A paid PR person would have to learn a lot to address these types of posts.

I find these posts to be good practice as they force me to refine my explanation.  In the end people reading this thread will learn something, even long-time supporters.  So this is not waisted effort on my part.  As the community grows more and more volunteers will be able to step up and support the design and in a few short months these arguments will be as empty as those saying "Bitcoin is Impossible" or "Bitcoin is Worthless".   Then everyone will be frantically attempting to explain why it is working when their own misunderstanding of economics says it shouldn't. 

Either that or I will learn a lot and have an opportunity to improve.

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 21, 2014, 07:04:04 pm

The OP registered on January 20th, has exactly one post, but has been able to take up Bytemaster's extremely valuable time just prior to the major Miami initiative.

The spurious argument needed to be refuted because it appeared here. But we need to find a way to prevent further wastage of valuable resources, perhaps by keeping newly registered posters in the Newbie section for a period of time and a number of posts.

Ignoring criticism is not the right thing. That would only confirm the critics in their belief.
The discussion is important and if it delays the BitShares launch by an hour because Bytemaster got distracted - well I'd rather wait a bit longer for a quality product.

I'd also like to pose a question:  Have you stopped to consider why financial markets don't offer products like BitUSD?  I.e. a derivative without a terminal horizon, designed to track an underlying via a yield mechanism as the tracking incentivization?

i) But all futures/options markets have a terminal date.