Bitshares now has a professional PR initiative

[Tuck Fheman]

Nobody is that dumb to believe that.

"If you say 'gullible' slowly, it sounds like 'oranges'."

[NewMine]

Why did this get buried?

This was not a misunderstanding. Nobody is that dumb to believe that.

[yellowecho]

I was late to the announcement so I couldn't read the details but from what I've gathered there will be a PR representative that will help organize and translate development news which has been needed for quite some time IMO. 

I think the small fish in China has been asking for this too . Just got ignored .

I agree.  BitShares is a decentralized autonomous community but we live in separate camps on the forum because of the translation barrier.  Everything is transparent which is wonderful but it's unorganized and difficult to follow for those that don't speak English or don't live on GitHub.  We need the international community to come together and I think this is a positive step towards that direction and I see this PR position as being very beneficial (and much needed) if done properly. 

[btswildpig]

This will go over well with the non-Bitshares cryptocurrency community.

It amazes me the lack of foresight involved with a decision like this.  This could've been kept private and BM's post frequency minimized, as it should be. Typing and answering forum posts is not coding.  No need to announce a man in the high castle will be editing his posts and others.

The big problem is you have a couple Chinese whales pulling strings here. Their thoughts and ideas may be right but this is the wrong way of going about it. Unfortunately they have been threatening BM that they will divest and are scaring him into their will. 

This is only the beginning of what the Chinese whales want. More to come....Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with what they want, but the inevitable results will kill Bitshares.

I think the small fish in China has been asking for this too . Just got ignored .

[Tuck Fheman]

The big problem is you have a couple Chinese whales pulling strings here.

go ahead (if you haven't already) and hit 'ignore'

[muse-umum]

This is the most exiciting news that I've ever heard of since last Oct. +5000000%

[NewMine]

This will go over well with the non-Bitshares cryptocurrency community.

It amazes me the lack of foresight involved with a decision like this.  This could've been kept private and BM's post frequency minimized, as it should be. Typing and answering forum posts is not coding.  No need to announce a man in the high castle will be editing his posts and others.

The big problem is you have a couple Chinese whales pulling strings here. Their thoughts and ideas may be right but this is the wrong way of going about it. Unfortunately they have been threatening BM that they will divest and are scaring him into their will. 

This is only the beginning of what the Chinese whales want. More to come....Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with what they want, but the inevitable results will kill Bitshares. 

[gamey]

I'm not sure everyone has the cause and effect correct.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

The whole thing was incredibly amaturish.  If you are going to call yourself a professional PR whatever, then your first public announcement is what we saw....  I don't even know where to start.

I do believe there is a communication issue here, regardless of what is claimed.  Why does there appear to be 2 fairly distinct takes on everything, split by the West/East. I don't think it can be overcome totally but things can be done.  I think a lot of people would agree about Dan.  He either pisses off other blockchain projects, or somehow seeds panic in others.  He needs a PR adviser. That is for sure.

My personal belief is we just need to move quickly to a new model of government/proposals. That is the problem. I don't have as much faith in Dan anymore but I still see Bitshares as having a lot of potential.

What does a real Western company do?  They get rid of the CEO.  Well we can't do that and we wouldn't want to lose Dan, but I would like to see his power lessened. This can be done by having stakeholders vote on what to prioritize/fund in a reasonable manner.  When that happens people don't have to run screaming everytime they hear a word thunder down off Mount Bytemaster.  Instead, it'll just be Dan our chief advisor, one voice amongst many.

[Gentso1]

This is such a good thing that I can not even begin to put it into words.

[speedy]

Tell me more ways .
I like to know what kind of effort will raise market cap .
It is needed badly now more than ever . So , you input ?

What we need is more liquidity in the BitUSD:BitBTC market. This will mean you never have to leave our ecosystem, even if you are only bullish on BTC and not on BTS.

My market maker bot should be up and running in a few days. Its got a cool little GUI that lets you set your open & cancel margin levels according to your level of risk.

[btswildpig]

I like to know what kind of effort will raise market cap .
It is needed badly now more than ever . So , you input ?

I would start with a clear development road map.  See MaidSafe for example, http://maidsafe.net/roadmap.

It is uncertainty that shakes most investors and the market in general.  Constantly changing direction under the guise of "growing up" is just confusing.  Develop a road map and stick to it.  The other 2.0 projects have for the most part been very clear as to their goals and how they plan to get there.

That being said, as much as most here don't want to admit, so goes the market value of Bitcoin so goes the market value of other blockchain tech.  There is not a lot the Bitshares community can do to change this.  This is a long term investment, and a very risky one at that.  It's a fool's errand to try and analyze what affects the market cap on a day to day basis.

Further communication indicates open information like this was part of the plan in a revised draft of this announcement to further the proper transparency needed for the public like yourself ,  just lost in the E-mails sent to BM and it was expected to be vetted by every one of the developers first before publishing it . I've asked people to remove the post until the right one can be obtained .

The up-to-date plan is different from this old one days ago .

[wasthatawolf]

I like to know what kind of effort will raise market cap .
It is needed badly now more than ever . So , you input ?

I would start with a clear development road map.  See MaidSafe for example, http://maidsafe.net/roadmap.

It is uncertainty that shakes most investors and the market in general.  Constantly changing direction under the guise of "growing up" is just confusing.  Develop a road map and stick to it.  The other 2.0 projects have for the most part been very clear as to their goals and how they plan to get there.

That being said, as much as most here don't want to admit, so goes the market value of Bitcoin so goes the market value of other blockchain tech.  There is not a lot the Bitshares community can do to change this.  This is a long term investment, and a very risky one at that.  It's a fool's errand to try and analyze what affects the market cap on a day to day basis.

[btswildpig]

You're assuming there will be enough budget for further development for this complicated project with over 1 million lines of code if major investors keep leaving . Especially when we're on the edge of competing with several other 2.0 projects .

Once you can get more free developers in here to ensure the future of the development budget , your point would be more valid . Or better yet , become one , see if you would still act like anything would be normal if investors keep leaving .

You can't expect to benefit from the investors through AGS , dilution and thus has the advantage over all the other projects while expecting things to be perfect once you kick them out . BitShares is where it is now majorly because of the serious investors so that we could afford a dream team in the first place .

This is a company , it's suppose to gain the mass investors , users , and network effect . That's what we've been told during the merger .
I don't think actual network effect can be accomplished if we want to kick the big investors out .

Although , I'm not sure if you're understand "big holder" correctly . .
From my understanding , they're building a whole industry for BitShares , including network effects , relationships with business , it's not the kind of simple "buyer" you're think of . Their efforts matters more than your typical big holders .

This is not a company in the traditional sense.  It is a peer to peer software package.  If these large investors liquidate their holdings, there is another party or parties on the other end of that transaction.  It does not destroy the network.  Handcuffing developers weakens the network.  Not being open with the community weakens the network.  Relying on a "spokesman" to disseminate ideas and information weakens the network.

You are assuming the "spokesman" approach is the only way to raise market cap (which in turn increases developer pay).  I think this is naive and you are pandering to a group that does not decide the success of the network.

Tell me more ways .
I like to know what kind of effort will raise market cap .
It is needed badly now more than ever . So , you input ?

[wasthatawolf]

You're assuming there will be enough budget for further development for this complicated project with over 1 million lines of code if major investors keep leaving . Especially when we're on the edge of competing with several other 2.0 projects .

Once you can get more free developers in here to ensure the future of the development budget , your point would be more valid . Or better yet , become one , see if you would still act like anything would be normal if investors keep leaving .

You can't expect to benefit from the investors through AGS , dilution and thus has the advantage over all the other projects while expecting things to be perfect once you kick them out . BitShares is where it is now majorly because of the serious investors so that we could afford a dream team in the first place .

This is a company , it's suppose to gain the mass investors , users , and network effect . That's what we've been told during the merger .
I don't think actual network effect can be accomplished if we want to kick the big investors out .

Although , I'm not sure if you're understand "big holder" correctly . .
From my understanding , they're building a whole industry for BitShares , including network effects , relationships with business , it's not the kind of simple "buyer" you're think of . Their efforts matters more than your typical big holders .

This is not a company in the traditional sense.  It is a peer to peer software package.  If these large investors liquidate their holdings, there is another party or parties on the other end of that transaction.  It does not destroy the network.  Handcuffing developers weakens the network.  Not being open with the community weakens the network.  Relying on a "spokesman" to disseminate ideas and information weakens the network.

You are assuming the "spokesman" approach is the only way to raise market cap (which in turn increases developer pay).  I think this is naive and you are pandering to a group that does not decide the success of the network.

[btswildpig]

The problem with forum is , everyone assume it's a "open communication" while in fact just a few people participate in the discussions . Developers spent their time to discuss with a few people , but the consequence is for the majority of the shareholders to handle , let alone for those don't even have time to go to the forum in the first place . So in the end , a place is supposed to be a open communication channel becomes the stage for a few people while they don't even take the discussions seriously .

Sometimes I see more effective discussions on Skype , mumble , nullstreet , etc ...

If you want what to be in the action , joint the action . No one is forbidding you to talk to the developers privately  through all kinds of channels .

I don't disagree that the forum can be disorganized at times and is not perfect regarding dissemination of ideas.  That is not the issue here.

The issue, as it appears to me, is that the plan going forward is for this "spokesman" to be a filter for all public discussion and comments made by core developers.  This is an unnecessary bottleneck and will likely do more harm than good.  It seems like a desperation move to appease a handful of large holders of Bitshares.  Honestly, if these large holders don't like the developers talking to the community in an open forum they should liquidate their holdings.  Bending to the will of these large holders and putting a leash on the developers seems to me to go against the core values of Bitshares.

You're assuming there will be enough budget for further development for this complicated project with over 1 million lines of code if major investors keep leaving . Especially when we're on the edge of competing with several other 2.0 projects .

Once you can get more free developers in here to ensure the future of the development budget , your point would be more valid . Or better yet , become one , see if you would still act like anything would be normal if investors keep leaving .

You can't expect to benefit from the investors through AGS , dilution and thus has the advantage over all the other projects while expecting things to be perfect once you kick them out . BitShares is where it is now majorly because of the serious investors so that we could afford a dream team in the first place .

This is a company , it's suppose to gain the mass investors , users , and network effect . That's what we've been told during the merger .
I don't think actual network effect can be accomplished if we want to kick the big investors out .

Although , I'm not sure if you're understand "big holder" correctly . .
From my understanding , they're building a whole industry for BitShares , including network effects , relationships with business , it's not the kind of simple "buyer" you're think of . Their efforts matters more than your typical big holders .