Author Topic: 'Network member' as a good label for BitShares-integrators?  (Read 887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I think I prefer the term partners.

In the tech space that term is used in many ways.. but considering the nature of the relationship and the level of integration, I would say its more fitting in these circumstance.

Membership suggests something that can be revoked and was something that was simply bought into, which is not the case here. Partnership is a cooperative. To be more specific, you can say network partners... since it is a partnership of networks in essence.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
When pitching to potential BitShares companies I'm often referring to the existing players already signed-up. Banx, Peak Venture, CCEDK, DSN etc.

Is 'Network members' a good way to label them?
It does not suggest ownership over the platform and sounds cooperative.
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM