Author Topic: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?  (Read 5137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2014, 04:29:08 am »
DPoS has been sold on the basis of decentralised control, and its important to know that my vote counts. And from BM's figures, its good to have confirmed that it does.

Offline jae208

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2014, 06:59:58 am »

I don't think its a problem, considering that they are actually creating Bitshares, and we need them to develop it.  Without the devs, a coin is nothing.

True, but without users it doesn't matter if you have rock star developers a coin will still be nothing. I am certainly in favor of taking care of developers. I'm not too sure I can say the same about marketing though. I always like to make the comparison with Bitcoin. How is it that Bitcoin became worth several billion dollars without a marketing team and what is it that we can do to improve? In terms of spreading the message I think that with the cheap communication tools we have there is no reason why spreading the message of Bitshares should cost much.
http://bitsharestutorials.com A work in progress
Subscribe to the Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/BitsharesTutorials

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Have we passed a centralization tipping point?
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2014, 11:12:05 am »
I had similar panic concerns fluxer :)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9539.msg124040#msg124040

To be the winner right now though is all about getting the best talent & marketing. Good devs are clearly worth their weight in gold. I think dilution is the best solution for BitShares. There has also been some limits placed on the dilution.

I do worry that if the market views BitShares as partly centralised already, then I think our valuation is going to be significantly handicapped as a result even in the short term so it's also something I've been keen to address by encouraging more voting as well as not keeping too much BTSX on the big exchanges.

Setting aside the fact that BitShares is far more effectively decentralized than most of its true competitors, that is of little concern.  We are also more decentralized than most companies people routinely do business with.  The demographic we will market to first does not generally care about this any more than they stop to consider the share distribution of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or Benny's Car Parts Outlet.

:)

Yeah I can see you guys are envisioning people using a variety of front end applications and the fact that it's BitShares on the back end & how it works may be largely irrelevant to them. Personally I think the main market will be BitAssets. I think the brand image of BitShares, particularly the level of perceived decentralisation could be important.

On the shareholder side, if you're perceived to have centralised weaknesses and/or are ever operating in grey areas then they may value BitShares on a very short earnings horizon vs. a competitor that was perceived to be more decentralised, who could therefore achieve a higher valuation and raise more funds via dilution as a result.

BitShares is pretty decentralised though, and I'm really about encouraging more active voting stake and less on big exchanges than anything else.

If one goes out and approaches 20 random people on the street today and asks them if they are worried about the negative impact of centralization.  I bet you the answer would be no.....they many have never even considered the implications.  And for the few that answer in the affirmative, they would generally believe that there are no practical alternatives to the current status quo anyway.  So the mass market is not clamoring for an alternate. In fact most have not identified the issue.  In this case we in the crypto community are the advance guard.....the riders at the leading edge of the wave, if you will.   

The market we are going after is not the crypomarket.........if all we do is capture the current crypto market this project would be a failure IMO.  There is far more unrecognized demand out there, it is just a matter of the packaging and presentation of the product and getting our value proposition and story in focus .  Since in the wider market the issues we here see as pressing - centralization of control and undue influence in the economic system-  are not yet pressing concerns with clear alternatives (thought they are ever so slowly becoming so), we have time to get our decentralization framework right.   I feel we are moving in this direction.  However, we do not need to rush this transition due to fear of alienating the markets.  The mass markets don't care about decentralization (as we here do).  When WILL they care?  It is really unknown and surely out of our control, but my opinion is that they will not start to really pay attention to the issue of centralization until this whole monetary system begins to swerve into the ditch (ala Cypress).

I didn't say BTS shouldn't market outside crypto. I'm saying there are customers and investors.

Unlike a Facebook/Apple, a DAC operates in grey areas and could be unfairly targeted at any time. There are also no legal restrictions placed on notification of and sale of shares in DACs.  If BTS is perceived to be a DAC that can be targeted or overly influenced via one man or a small group, it will receive a tiny valuation from investors as it would obviously be super fragile. (You may have to bring in 5-10X more users/earnings than a competitor to get the same valuation if you're judged to be weak here.)

On the user side, they will be offered probably a debit card, bonus & yield. Each consumer is different but most will at least look at a rating site, a forum or ask a knowledgable friend about BitUSD/BTS before they part with their cash.
Decentralisation is a key criteria on which a DAC is rated by the market that does understand it, so will strongly define the positive or negative BitShares brand image consumers see when trying to validate the opportunity from a more knowledgable source. They will steer clear of a DAC with a negative brand image, feedback or a low rating whether they specifically understand decentralisation themselves or not.

More importantly the next Cyprus catalyst will be huge and could happen at any time. It will result in a huge loss of trust and confidence in centralised institutions & we will see consumers seriously looking for & evaluating those criteria in DACs in the aftermath.

I think BitShares is fine & competitive in this area, I'm just making the point that I think market perceived decentralisation or lack thereof shouldn't be under rated.