Cryptonomex? WTF is this?

[Method-X]

bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

Sharedropping on BTS holders is an interesting idea. It would make sense considering our investment is what made all this possible. It would also be another world first.

[montpelerin]

bytemaster, will the community be able to invest in Cryptonomex directly through a BTS UIA?

It would be great to see Cryptonomex eat the BTS dogfood with something this important.

Additionally, would a sharedrop on the table for BTS, PTS or AGS holders?

[sittingduck]

Look it is very clear the devs are working to make bitshares better and giving bitshares everything.   It is also equally clear that the devs stake in bts is shrinking or non existent because they have to sell to pay the bills.    Where do you think they are getting the money to pay devs enough to live on?

So it seems really clear to me.  Bitshares needs to give the devs more stake or we will always doubt. 

Think about it,  if they held 80% of bts would we ever doubt their loyalty.   They now control less than ever and people expect them to sell off what they have left while working below market.   At this trajectory devs will have no stake in months.   

Deep down those afraid about dev loyalty need to back the devs and start a campaign for more delegates.  It is those of us that demand devs work for peanuts and remain loyal that are the most greedy and selfish of all.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bubble789]

well we did not ask anyone to be owned by BTS now or at any point in time. we ask for community leaders.

but i guess with Dan insisting on being a contractor now, it is time to rebalancing my BTS position.

cross post:

My opinion is that a distributed community/society *does need* leaders in order to survive and stay focused+competitive. It doesn't have to be the "official" head but a socially-recognised and unanimously-agreed-on leaders who help to lead and serve the community. And again I want to stress that we won't need dictators but capable and devoted leaders.

Dan and co. have been doing that job extremely well and I (and hopefully the community) wish that the team continues to and stays committed in playing these roles in bitshares ecosystem.

[chryspano]

It's too late!

It's already happening!

We are doomed!

EVERYONE start selling panic selling NOW!



[EDIT]
This is a JOKE, It seems I have to say the obvious because some people would believe every FUD they could hear

[bubble789]

and I thought you were talking about working towards our guiding principles and ideological goals and purposes first then monetary gains will come eventually.
and I thought (after this whole time when the team has been underpaid) BTS developers were working hard towards something bigger than just monetary gains.
but, but I understand your point completely.

BTS stakeholders must make do what it takes to retain talent, period.
Developers must do what makes the most sense to maximize their income, period.

BTS has been public domain thus far, which means anyone could take the code and the developers have been independent which means they are "free to leave".   

It really comes down to the community continuing to make "staying" the best option available.   This is FREE MARKET cooperation.

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   
If GS wants to produce a blockchain that is not compatible with BitShares philosophy, then developers should still take them up on it because it would be a DIFFERENT MARKET and they could use the money earned to improve BTS.

Bottom line the only reason for developers to not take them up on it is if they actually think they could compete head to head with GS when all technology is equal. 

[bubble789]

I also found a post by a concerned person

I guess nm was talking about this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16318.msg216006.html#msg216006
and just to clarify, I did not mean to create FUD but wanted a better understanding of the potential issues I foresee. 

[Ben Mason]

Bitshares was launched a little over a year ago with a price of roughly $0.01/bts.  The current price is about $0.007/bts.  While devs have not made much money over the past year, shareholders have lost money.  The whole premise to begin with was for devs to produce more value than they take and by the above metric, that hasn't worked out so well.  So who is to say that GS would hire a dev team that has lost value for its shareholders over the past year?  Sometimes you have to look at it from a shareholders perspective also, not just a devs perspective. 

Now I absolutely don't believe that devs have not produced value over the past year.  Markets can often be irrational and the entire crypto industry has been mired in a bear market over the past year.  Also, re-engineering the entire global financial system is a major undertaking with much trial and error along the way.  Shareholders' only recourse is to attempt to hire a new dev team or allocate their capital elsewhere, which many have done. 

IMO, this project Simply will not succeed without the current dev team.  We are all in this together.  Devs need shareholders and shareholders need devs.  The new design may just be the ticket to significantly reward both shareholders and devs.  In fact, I am confident that at some point, top talent from GS will be flocking to bitshares to be a part of our team, and it may happen sooner than we all think.  We have already seen many defectors from the legacy financial system move into crypto, and many more are sure to follow.  Besides, for GS to develop a system to compete against bitshares, they would either have to create a centralized system, which they already have, or clone bitshares and maybe add in a few tweaks.  In other words, GS can't compete, they can only join the crypto space if they want to survive the upcoming revolution.

It really depends on your perspective and mine is that the price of BTS has not yet reflected true value and will not until the medium to long term. Bitcoin has gotten along just fine, despite its flaws, without satoshi.

[puppies]

I plan on doing exactly that which I feel is in my best interest.  I do not expect that to change.  I would not expect BM nor any of the other members of this community to do that which they feel is not in their best interest at any time.  You are not able to sell your future self into slavery.

If BM or any of the other members of this community promised to do that which is not in their best interest in the future, I would have to assume that they were either a liar or a sociopath.

With that said it must be understood that my best interest does not consist solely or even mostly of material well being.  I like most of you live rather comfortably with the reasonable expectation that I will be comfortable for the rest of my life.  I try hard to be a good person.  I don't hurt other people.  I do not plunder and enslave others.  In short, I attempt to live morally based upon what I believe to be a logical reasonable set of moral principles.  This is worth far more to me than a million dollars.

I believe BM holds a similar set of principles, and is also not motivated primarily by material well being.  I may disagree with him about a great many things, but I know he will not attempt to plunder nor enslave me.  We may have paid him to develop bitshares, but we paid him a year ago in a depreciating currency.  How long would you work for your last paycheck?

[merockstar]

Over the past 4 months the BitShares community has only funded the developers enough to do basic bug fixing on 0.9.x series (and likely not even enough to do that).

are you considering as funding only the delegate payments? What about the vested funds that all Developers have in place? What about the AGS funds that was used last year?
I have the feeling that the core developers should not complain, it's not the community's fault if they not managed the funds well... (example Brian Page salary etc.)

If I recall correctly, I believe there was some sort of legal technicality that forced them to find quick uses for the AGS fund. So I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But BM threatened to walk if there was no merger, did he not? And now this (I believe the term "tough love" was used).

I've supported this project for a long time and consistently put as much as I could afford into this because I support the vision of liberation from the banksters. And I've held after losing money from buying in too early.

I rarely ever express doubt in this project, and when I do have some shred of doubt I know my concerns will be assuaged quickly. I've gotten used to that. Perhaps taken it for granted even, yes a certain level of trust has been built. I haven't been able to contribute as much as I'd like to, but I'm working on it. I do feel like an OG here anyway. So without being accused of trying to spread FUD or trolling, cause anyone whose been around knows that's the last thing I'd want to do, I do feel entitled to ask:

BM, in all candor, is your heart still truly in this? This last update was massive. It's understandable if you're a little burnt out.

[Helikopterben]

Bitshares was launched a little over a year ago with a price of roughly $0.01/bts.  The current price is about $0.007/bts.  While devs have not made much money over the past year, shareholders have lost money.  The whole premise to begin with was for devs to produce more value than they take and by the above metric, that hasn't worked out so well.  So who is to say that GS would hire a dev team that has lost value for its shareholders over the past year?  Sometimes you have to look at it from a shareholders perspective also, not just a devs perspective. 

Now I absolutely don't believe that devs have not produced value over the past year.  Markets can often be irrational and the entire crypto industry has been mired in a bear market over the past year.  Also, re-engineering the entire global financial system is a major undertaking with much trial and error along the way.  Shareholders' only recourse is to attempt to hire a new dev team or allocate their capital elsewhere, which many have done. 

IMO, this project Simply will not succeed without the current dev team.  We are all in this together.  Devs need shareholders and shareholders need devs.  The new design may just be the ticket to significantly reward both shareholders and devs.  In fact, I am confident that at some point, top talent from GS will be flocking to bitshares to be a part of our team, and it may happen sooner than we all think.  We have already seen many defectors from the legacy financial system move into crypto, and many more are sure to follow.  Besides, for GS to develop a system to compete against bitshares, they would either have to create a centralized system, which they already have, or clone bitshares and maybe add in a few tweaks.  In other words, GS can't compete, they can only join the crypto space if they want to survive the upcoming revolution. 

[liondani]

Over the past 4 months the BitShares community has only funded the developers enough to do basic bug fixing on 0.9.x series (and likely not even enough to do that).

are you considering as funding only the delegate payments? What about the vested funds that all Developers have in place? What about the AGS funds that was used last year?
I have the feeling that the core developers should not complain, it's not the community's fault if they not managed the funds well... (example Brian Page salary etc.)

[Ben Mason]

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?

BM and the other devs may need to supplement their income and leverage their knowledge and experience. If we are able to use what they've built to grow the network then we'll be able to retain all the devs, including those at cryptonmex. Let's not forget, no-one has invested more of themselves into Bitshares than BM and the core devs. The commitment they've shown, especially to the Bitshares philosophy, is not fickle. It doesn't just go away. As usual they are adapting and in a way that strengthens their ability to continue working on Bitshares and demonstrating the robust autonomous nature of the system...claims we're all frequently making. If we want Bitshares to succeed, we'd better follow the devs example and get to work.

[carpet ride]

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be he did say he has skin in the game that depends on BTS for the foreseeable future, so to a certain extent I feel like there's a mixed message in there), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?

They want to get paid in BTS and marketing is about to start.  It's gonna be all good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[merockstar]

As Ander said, it's probably in our interest to retain as many of the core devs as possible and maybe start offering them some trust and respect for what they've accomplished with some frikin donations.

I haven't panic sold.

I just can't help but consider the possibility that at the current level of adoption we may not be able to afford to hire back the devs. Does that not strike you as a very real possibility? If I'm reading him correctly (and I may not be he did say he has skin in the game that depends on BTS for the foreseeable future, so to a certain extent I feel like there's a mixed message in there), BM just insinuated that he would walk if the price isn't right. This is cause for concern, and I'm not here to undermine this project.

I just can't help but wonder what the necessary conditions are to hang on to the core devs, and can they realistically be met? If not then what happens?

EDIT: In fact, were it not for the immense respect I have for the work done so far, I wouldn't even give a shit.