Quote from: luckybit on October 13, 2014, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: NewMine on October 13, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Maybe bitsapphire should delete or lock that board. No need to steer people there or leave a dead end exposed.

What is LottoShares? It's not Bitshares Play right?

Right, it is NOT Bitshares Play.

Quote from: NewMine on October 13, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
Maybe bitsapphire should delete or lock that board. No need to steer people there or leave a dead end exposed.

What is LottoShares? It's not Bitshares Play right?

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 13, 2014, 06:31:32 PM

Quote from: Riverhead on October 13, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
I think it had logic problems FT wasn't able to resolve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I don't think it ever looked to be gaining traction anyway.

I would argue even without issues, LTS would have struggled to compete with a DAC that had a greater distribution to DAC savvy investors + perhaps a separate pre-sale as the Bitcoin & Dogecoin airdrops would have exerted consistent selling pressure which would discourage adoption and investment. The 30% dev allocation would have likely made it centralised in practice also giving it little hope for mass adoption. (Whereas DAC savvy guys would likely increase their positions in the most promising DAC's as well as added value in other ways, including perhaps more interest & input from the BitShares devs.)

This might be the first piece of evidence that proves the theory that the Social Consensus has a significant effect on market behavior. LottoShares probably did not give enough shares to AGS/PTS holders to keep the sustained attention and use by the community.

I was paying so much attention to Bitshares Play that I forgot LottoShares even existed. As our community gets bigger the pressure could become greater to continue to adhere to the Social Consensus but the difference between the Social Consensus and mining is that while both centralize power the Social Consensus is entirely voluntary.

Future DAC developers can look at LottoShares as proof that if you don't offer a fair enough sharedrop to PTS/AGS holders then no one is going to use your DAC, promote your DAC. It's pump and dump and a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

Quote from: Riverhead on October 13, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
I think it had logic problems FT wasn't able to resolve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I don't think it ever looked to be gaining traction anyway.

I would argue even without issues, LTS would have struggled to compete with a DAC that had a greater distribution to DAC savvy investors + perhaps a separate pre-sale as the Bitcoin & Dogecoin airdrops would have exerted consistent selling pressure which would discourage adoption and investment. The 30% dev allocation would have likely made it centralised in practice also giving it little hope for mass adoption. (Whereas DAC savvy guys would likely increase their positions in the most promising DAC's as well as added value in other ways, including perhaps more interest & input from the BitShares devs.)

Quote from: drltc on October 13, 2014, 06:21:21 PM

Quote from: NewMine on October 13, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
LottoShares (third party)DAC has been terminated after being abandoned by Dev.

Can someone cite some announcement somewhere?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8916.msg127027#msg127027

Quote from: NewMine on October 13, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
LottoShares (third party)DAC has been terminated after being abandoned by Dev.

Can someone cite some announcement somewhere?

Quote from: Riverhead on October 13, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
I think it had logic problems FT wasn't able to resolve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I think he had business model problem (15% rake, mining), so 'not being able to resolve logic problem' was just an excuse. {Disclaimer} One man's opinion only.

I think it had logic problems FT wasn't able to resolve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Luckily it's not a core DAC and doesn't have BitShares in the brand name.

I expect to see many third party DAC's come and go, most new businesses are expected to fail.

I guess airdropping 40% to Bitcoin & Dogecoin didn't help bootstrap it...  :P
It also had a big dev allocation, 30% if I recall, which even if justified would have hindered mass adoption imo anyway.

+1 for locking it. Maybe with a note pointing to Just Dice Style DAC.

Maybe bitsapphire should delete or lock that board. No need to steer people there or leave a dead end exposed.