The sharedrop thing was never given any sort of chance. Mining gives away far more than 10%.  10% for a premade dedicated community to support your product isn't that bad of a deal. If someone gives you 10% then it either will be in the code or it won't.

I remain a big fan of sharedropping. If done right, it could be well worth the cost.

I just use the light wallet, which works better for me than OL in any browser.

Cob, thanks for the honest and comprehensive update. This is a very complex project and it sounds like you've steered it through a lot of obstacles. Rome wasn't built in a day; delays are par for the course with projects like this. Of course, I strongly look forward to the day when we have an awesome product to promote and grow.

I added another response that I think expresses your position and possibly others.

There are no statements in the poll that I agree with. A simple 'no' would be better. I just see a lot of reasons why your suggestion could involve a lot of work and expense for little real gain. But hey, if you can make this work, then I'm not against it. Here's an idea: why not run your survey outside of BitShares and see what other potential customers think? This place can be a bit of an echo chamber.

With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.

I said unethical, not illegal. There's a difference. Everything you wrote is true, but none of it excuses their behavior. I was likening their role to that of a stock exchange in terms of their ethical obligations to their fellow human beings and the communities with whom they interact. The fact that stock exchanges are regulated has no bearing at all on my example. But perhaps one could find a better analogy than I used.

The whole point of this technology is to replace centralized regulation with consensus driven code.  If yunbi truly is a major problem (and I'm not convinced that it is), then the rules of the system need to change.

I agree the rules probably could change and that this may not pose a major problem for BitShares anyway. I'm simply disappointed they went for the lowest common denominator, making the kind of dumb business decision a 12-year-old kid would make.

As to your point about technology replacing regulation, fine, but it doesn't apply here. I'm not imposing regulation on anyone. I'm simply expecting better things from my fellow human beings. Even if you live in some libertarian utopia where there's no regulation and no enforcement, then if someone robs you blind while you're carrying your bag of gold to the supermarket (or someone hacks and drains your account), then there's some expectation of human behavior there that's been broken. If you don't want to use the system, then you don't have to put them in jail or shoot them dead or sue them, but wouldn't you at least put out the word that they're not trustworthy and use any existing reputation system to explain to others what they have done with your trust?

I would suggest that we have duties to respect our fellow human beings and that these expectations transcend any written law. If you don't believe this, then we're no better than animals. The same is true for good practices in business. If you shit on your customers, employees, other stakeholders, or those in your community, then you've sacrificed your good will. When you lose your reputation in business, there isn't much left.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.