Consensus reached on Mumble session regarding BM's "Fix-all" proposal

[matt608]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine?

That's easy.  With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC.  Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.

Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features.  Dilution is an obvious one.  If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.  With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.

The thing is the DAC's job is to sell bitassets.  That's the 1 core business model potential investors need to be convinced of, that bitassets are awesome and can be sold and repackaged to countless markets in various of creative ways.  Each feature or 'merged dac' is really just another way to sell bitassets.  Investors just need to be convinced that the product (bitassets) is great.

It's like we have a multi-purpose product, bitassets.  There will be disagreements about which is the best way to sell the bitassets (which features/dacs to integrate), but its better to have one DAC selling bitassets in many ways than 20 DACS giving their bitassets the same name and coming up with similar ways to sell them (get merchants to accept them!  Get everyone to use them!). 

Full steam ahead!

[oldman]

Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

 

The devs have my full support to implement the BTS merger, and the sooner the better.

The DAC fragmentation/naming etc was a major stumbling block for marketing and investment.

Now folks can just buy BTS to invest in BTC 2.0.

Simple, clean and easy.

[amencon]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine?

That's easy.  With separate DACs you don't have to convince people to spend more for all the features in a swiss army knife DAC.  Let's say someone is only interested in one aspect of the DAC, well now you have to convince them that's it's worth their money spending it on all the functions within the DAC for access to the one feature they are interested in.

Further, multiple DACs let you experiment with various DAC features.  Dilution is an obvious one.  If you have one DAC and it employs dilution and there is a potential user/investor that doesn't like dilution then you have no products for them to invest in.  With multiple DACs you have a greater chance of apealing to a greater cross section of users and investors overall.

[bluebit]

Do it, merge all into BitsharesX.  All funding should go into 1 DAC, and that funding can be distributed according to each DAC's need, so if someone doesn't know where to fund, they just fund the main DAC.

[amencon]

Can you explain why most of your concerns were alleviated?  This proposal is a major departure from the original plan.  I liked the idea of an ecosystem.  One where you could weight your investments based on the core purpose of each DAC and it's other features and merits.

With a single chain that's lost.  Now if you see value in the vote feature (or whatever) you have to pony up for all the other features of the DAC as well.

I'm also not a fan of dilution, I don't believe there will be a way to accurately and conclusively determine the added value it will bring and the decision to dilute will most likely come from emotional campaigns or suggestion from I3.

Add that this is essentially a huge statement from I3 that their stated goals mean little and are subject to massive changed at whim, not usually a good signal to woo future potential investors.

I listened to the recording and it essentially sounds like BM wants to change his mind on how the ecosystem will be built because of backlash from BTSX holders due to poorly planned communications by BM that had them speculating that the Vote DAC was going to eat their lunch.

Can you describe exactly what it was that he said that assuaged your concerns about this radical change?  It sounds like you also liked the idea of multiple competing chains, is that now not the case?  I only ask because I didn't hear anything that changed my mind about what I like.

Oh don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the single blockchain concept and the proposal is not the way I like things to go. But I also understand the practical implications that if adoption fails and a certain threshold of adoptions is not reached this entire project will be dead in the water. So like you said, I'm not in favor of the single blockchain at all. What alleviated my concern was, that I realized that should the bitshares-project gain enough adoption and because of the opensource toolkit. It will allow for forks and spinoffs and help convince others to try and follow the same concepts and pos. The proposal is more for these separate chains to not be the sole responsibility of the bitshares team. Which is a good thing in my book, eventhough investors/speculators/stake holders might feel otherwise. Like I said, I'm an idealist, so I don't really give all that much about my stake as long as the world improves, I'm all for it.

I also realized during the session that a colossal structure would probably not be able to compete with specialized and more agile spinoffs. Also the promise by the bitshares team to support people honoring the stake in the social contract, would probably be enough for new DACs to get a better start in the future. So now I see a possibility for more independence from the bitshares team with these separate dacs, which might not be what stake holders want to hear.

So I agree looking for the easy way out is bad and communication is not being done well, I'm now seeing other ways of distributed developments more independent from bytemaster and the tiny bitshares team. I would have loved them being able to setup this entire ecosystem with competition and all, but with their current resources, funds and team-members I can see how they are not able to do that currently.

Feel free to correct my mistaken logic when you see it, I may very well be confused, I've not been sleeping well and my mind could very well have started playing tricks on me. The hangout happened in the middle of the night for me and I was already exhausted when it started. I finished the uploads and posted the links at 3:30am means my brain is not firing on all cylinders today and caffeine is no longer up to the task.

Gotta run, sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm typing this as fast as I can and I'm not a native english speaker.

Thanks for the detailed reply, you are making sense. 

It's a good point about team size and resources.  Originally I believe the plan was for each DAC to be "championed" by someone from their team with their own resources, for instance toast was heading up the KeyID development.  That way I3 could develop multiple ideas at once and hopefully compare notes and share among themselves so each new DAC could be built stronger.  Perhaps they now realize it's too much to grow their team large enough to fragment it to accommodate the development of multiple DACs at once.  Plenty of companies stumble when trying to cross the chasm from one man shop to small business, then again going from small business to medium sized.

Hopefully the right decisions are being made, hard to know without having all the facts.  I do feel that now it is known that this is what I3 wants and will likely happen no matter what, some investors are just painting on a smile and agreeing this is "great news" to help ease the turbulent market effects all these comments and proposals have had.  Very reminiscent of the "this is actually great news" meme in Bitcoin.  Thank you for backing up your reasoning in all this, makes a bit more sense to me.

[Gentso1]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

It would be vastly more expensive having a separate marketing team for each dac. My own opinion is that it would be so much easier to understand at a consumer level to just push one name. I dont think bitshares has nearly enough size to warrant having separate stand alone marketing teams. In the future after adoption is achieved, standalone chains with independent dev teams and marketing teams would be great. Would you agree that it is easier to grow one large business compared to a few small one? If you consider that the small businesses a still a bit away from even turning a profit I think it furthers the argument. Look at the delegate situation for btsx. I am not sure but I am assuming vote would be setup the same way. I would also bet that delegates their may be put in the same position. I think its wise to learn from what we have experienced with the first released product.

What advantages would their be to not combine? 

[davidpbrown]

How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex?

I don't understand why marketing many DACs becomes different by being all within one BitShares brand. Each DAC will need its own effort and perhaps marketing to different audiences and interests.

[Gentso1]

I have been a hard on the marketing team in the past because I felt their was a lack of marketing being done.  This lead to the discussion of How do you market bitshares and all of its dac's in a clear way? How can we ever how to reach any kind of a mainstream adoption when many have agreed we are message is far to complex? While having many chains does have the advantage of a more robust network  did we ever fully consider the man power to maintain a develop it?As a pure btsx holder I do give the edge to the Vote DAC. I think in the short term their potential for being used and widely adopted is pretty good. I think in the long term bitsharesx has a chance at being more profitable but it will take much longer to get their because the industry it is trying to break into is not known for its willingness for change. I know both systems would work in the immediate to compliment each other and most likely increase user base far more quickly then either could do on their own.   

I did not invest in ethereum because of the single chain concept. I thought that block chain bloat would be a issue in the long term and I liked the idea of many standalone chains in case one developed a fatal flaw. I still believe many chains is the way to go in the long run.In the short term to have the entire team both marketing and devs working on one chain and one brand will be more efficient and easier to explain. Its because of this and only this that I think it is a better short term move to use a single chain concept to spur adoption. Once adoption hits, bitshares will have a larger market cap, more dev's, and a bigger marketing team. At that point niche chains should be created.

It is faster to bake one cake then it is to bake 5........       

[santaclause102]

4. By the way. Handled properly this is a great PR stunt and campaign.  "The worlds first DAC acquisition."  More excuses to teach people about the DAC analogy of bitshares.

I like the way you think!

Completely agree that this whole many functions into BTSX would be a great PR story for BTSX and contains a lot of good arguments for a value increase of BTSX. The current downswing was entirely irrational and based (my guess) on the confusion of share dilution (to grow the share value) with monetary dilution. Giving BTSX stake to AGS after 28/2 / PTS would be something separate again from the proposed possibility of shareholder approved share dilution / capital infusion, it would be a merger acquisition (which also is only done (if behavior is rational) if it benefits both companies).

[GaltReport]

Everything we would have ever implemented.

what is with lottery/play, DNS, music? All those functionalities would go into BTSX?

I think these are independent.  Not sure though.

[NewMine]

that can be changed.  just recognize newmine is here with "mine" in his name.  he is obviously showing a pow bias before he even speaks.    those who wanted to attend, attended.  to act like it was a net negative...is kind of insane.  just look at the charts before, during and after the speech.

I apologize I wasn't around to attend the mumble session. From now on, I will quit my job just in anticipating of a random mumble session that may or may not happen on any given day. Hell, why don't we just shut the forum down and move all discussions to the mumble since no one wants to give a cliffs notes to anything that was talked about here. Not like its a forum or anything. Usually when someone doesn't want to explain something they either don't understand what it is they are to explain or they are unsure if the explanation is worthy of publicly acknowledging.

History lesson on my user name. I only mine PTS now and actually haven't mined any for a couple months as I got rid of most mining equipment as it became antiquated. So, with that said, I created the account in January when I was still mining BTC, PTS and a few other coins. Mining BTC was never profitable for me and I regretted buying the equipment. PTS has been quite profitable in theory since I transferred most to AGS and BTSX.

What charts should I look at?

What about my post was wrong? I based my assumption on OP's self admitted misleading title.

All I want is answers and explanations. I unfortunately don't have time to listen to 2 hour conference skypes or spend 2 hours sifting through the mega thread that emerged due to this.

No offense intended to any individual.

none taken.  I have thick skin

It is going to be impossible at this juncture to gain 100% consensus for every user.  What happened today was essentially another way to communicate.  Like TonyK said...speech is humanity's primary form of communication.  The mumble server is largely a community service and the fact that BM showed up imho deserves at least a bone tossed his way. 

We ALL know (if we've been around long enough) that BM has a way of occasionally posting a topic in hopes of reaching out transparently to the community.  We also know that sometimes it backfires.  Thankfully, he has always proven he will go out of his way to consider the perspective of his investors...and that is why we had it up and running.  We know you work, but unfortunateley we cannot hold a 24/7 conference with such short notice  

Luckily, we all can record though...and do so you can still listen on the way to work and back, or when you take your shower in the morning...or read the newspaper...etc.  It is really up to the investor to either divest or take what is given them to make the best possible decisions.  As for me, I work too and also pay for the server so we have access to this.  I ask nothing in return and even when i sometimes get tipped by invictus, it is sent out to people who have volunteered to help me. 

As far as the original post, i apologize for that.  We here in the forums have found over time that we run into a great many competitors who make shell accounts and come here specifically to sell FUD.  Sorry if we are sometimes a bit defensive.

Thanks Fuzz. No apology needed.

I will also admit that I can be defensive and offensive at times too.  My primary reasons for that are to protect an investment and keep a front row seat on the best train to a new revolutionary economic freedom gliding on the tracks of cryptocurrency blockchain technology. I do not want to see the train derailed because the unknown future looks better in hindsight to the decisions made which never got a chance to bloom.

A MotherShip DAC is definitely a better way.

Voter approved dilution and allocation of already distributed shares and then a subsequent distribution of newly included shares via AGS and PTS are my concern.

I am not seeing how you can transfer the value of BTSX into a new BTS and also give AGS and PTS part of the new BTS without diluting my current investment. Had I held onto every PTS, I would not care.

The only way is to create assets under BTS for AGS and PTS to be traded individually. But I also remember AGS was funded through Donations and creating an asset is really creating an AGS security that was illegally sold in the US. I see problems.

I'd like to see a locked sticky post addressing all these concerns, as I have stated, sifting through the mega thread for key points is consuming.

[jamesc]

So funny, all weekend I was thinking how controversy is powerful, efficient, entertaining, and CAN be great for a share price in the long run.  Even those directly involved should enjoy the excitement as they must learn the most.  I had no idea I would be satisfied so quickly.  Sorry, this may be controversial in itself but: Wow, what is it going to take to top this?

My perspective is that I'm a value investor.  I fully accept the physics that I am not a fortune teller even though it seems easy at times.  I have only several outs for selling Bitshares: got to have the money (worst nightmare), something better to invest in (my shares are still in BitShares), rebalance to provide diversification (an insurance policy that costs money but makes since going back to point #1; not a fortune teller).  All of this has very little to do with trading on news.  So, with this thinking I can withstand controversy and price swings quite well.  It has been years of doing this, but I even look forward to it now.  It means that there will have to be a better contender and those don't change often.  Basically I save a lot of time by not micro managing the investment.  I encourage this of everyone I talk to.

This means, I have not had to use bitUSD, GLD, etc.. as a hedge and this make me very happy.  Although I'm very much looking forward to using it to exchange assets with merchants.  I needs to be in our economy in a big way very soon it is getting vary hard to do things the old way which is just a waste of time and energy... 

[santaclause102]

Everything we would have ever implemented.

what is with lottery/play, DNS, music? All those functionalities would go into BTSX?

[davidpbrown]

Whatever is to happen to PTS needs to be resolved quickly. I wonder spawning a new asset would be safer and simpler for the value of BTSX. That would allow a simple confident statement asap on the value of BTSX not being affected in anything but a positive way by any other changes mooted.

Right now I suspect the slide we see in price is simply the more cautious and short term are moving to places of safety and that will only continue while there is uncertainty. Turn this to a positive and perhaps we'll see a prompt reversal, especially in key populations of interest, like the Chinese.

I think you are still missing the point...  if PTS continues as a separate asset then people have expectation of competing DACs that don't honor BTS.

Certainly, I do not see a downside to having a simple asset that is a Founders asset; liquid or otherwise, that is then separate from BTSX and doesn't then affect the BTSX price while it is resolved how and when a move from PTS/AGS occurs.

DAC creators will honor whatever they respect and more whatever is to their advantage; if honoring the Founders engages and established audience then that is useful; if it is clear that honoring BTS engages a wide interest group or current users, then that will become more important over time.

[bytemaster]

Everything we would have ever implemented.