We are vulnerable in decision making

[EstefanTT]

Maybe we could have a paid worker who would be aware of all the marketing projects,  in communication with every team, grouping all the contents/media in one place to make it easy for everyone to spread the word in a more united/homogeneous way ?

I'm thinking about my current project. We are revamping our website (BitShares French ConneXion) to be more in the line of bitshares.org.  We are not professionals in communication, some basic guidance would have save us hours and probably helps us to achieve an higher quality result.

It would be great great if someone (or a team) could assure that every marketing project could have some kind of common spirit BUT also could keep its own personality.

This is something we, IMHO, should have ready before bts 2.0 see it's first ray of sunshine.

(Maybe a team  would be better than one single person)

[jakub]

But I am unaware of any decisions as impacting as a framework-change that would require a long-term "marketing" decision.

The big long-term decision right now is of course the issue of taking the 2.0 opportunity to rebrand BitShares name and image.
(but I wouldn't want this thread to be dragged into this, the issue of rebranding just highlighted the underlying problem to me)

We have our "Steve Wozniak" with us and that's great but now we are trying to proceed not only without "Steve Jobs" but actually without anyone in charge. I have serious doubts if it is possible in this highly competitive world.
Look at Ethereum - their marketing success did not happen on its own, there must be some talented individual(s) behind it. If we say that our tech (and hopefully UX as well) is so good that we can safely ignore Ethereum's approach - then I think we might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

[xeroc]

Also, it's funny that you associate having leadership with granting permissions. For me leadership is about making tough & unpopular decisions.

Gotcha ..
But I am unaware of any decisions as impacting as a framework-change that would require a long-term "marketing" decision.

As you me figured out already, I am not into marketing .. but this may really become a problem (I understand you now) when you consider alignment of marketers and shareholders ...
I think this is something worth a discussion when we figured out how "viral" the referral program ca really go and what long-term decisions can NOT be decided by marketers ..

[jakub]

But generally you are missing my point, xeroc.
I agree that the referral program is good and it's going to be a success.
Also, I agree that different markets have their own specifics and it's better when local decisions are made locally.

But my main point is this: we have no viable mechanism to make big, long-term marketing decisions, similar to the one BM made with the Graphene framework.
If you are saying that the referral program is a good replacement for this, then I disagree.

Also, it's funny that you associate having leadership with granting permissions. For me leadership is about making tough & unpopular decisions.

[jakub]

Decentralization and DPOS means nobody can shut us down and our funds are allocated according to shareholders will.

woaw .. that statement is plain wrong. My funds are NOT allocated according to
shareholders will! Only new shares (by dilution) are!! Statements like those may
sound like FUD to some but are definitely misleading!

Of course, this is what I meant, thanks for clarifying this.

[xeroc]

Our lack of leadership on the marketing front is a serious vulnerability IMO.

Depends on the point of view. Do we require "leadership" in marketing? Why so?
Can you imaging that the European market is different from the U.S? I am pretty
sure the Chinese market is!

IMHO, with the referral "market", BitShares offers greate incentive for
decentralited marketing (read: viral marketing).

Decentralization and DPOS means nobody can shut us down and our funds are allocated according to shareholders will.

woaw .. that statement is plain wrong. My funds are NOT allocated according to
shareholders will! Only new shares (by dilution) are!! Statements like those may
sound like FUD to some but are definitely misleading!

So it guarantees we will survive but it doesn't offer any guarantee that we will
succeed - this comes down to a good leadership IMO and on the non-technical side
of things currently we have none.

Agreed. That's why we are currently working on a *european* "outpost" to (at
least) bundle the efforts taken to educate BTS in Europe. You should do the
same and fees from referral incentivize you to do so!

In 2.0 we are going to have a good referral system that will incentivize our
marketing activity but still we remain to be a headless chicken asking to be
shot down by the competition.

Why so? The only thing we REALLY lack is a good documentation that is prooven
not to contain wrong statements (e.g. yield). Once we have that, you can read,
learn, and educate using this material. Then marketing is independent!

BTW, in BitShares there is no one you need to ask for permission when it comes
to using the protocol! Just f**** DO it!

[jakub]

With DPOS we are in a much better position than bitcoin but I would think we are still quite vulnerable in the area of governance and decision making.
Apart from the merger affair back in 2014, we have not had an issue similar to the block size dilemma that bitcoin is having now. So I think we are having a false sense of security in this respect.

Thanks to the existence of BM we enjoy quite robust leadership on the technical front, but for all the other areas, e.g. marketing, we have no solid mechanism that would facilitate making tough decisions.

The decision to dump the existing code and write (almost) everything from scratch (thus delaying a stable release by half a year) was a tough decision and fortunately BM was in a position to take the risk and make it.
If a similar dilemma appears on a non-technical issue  - we are just limited to debating it on the forum and most probably adopting the least risky solution as there is no-one in charge who would be encouraged to put their reputation on the line and take a big-picture long-term approach.

Our lack of leadership on the marketing front is a serious vulnerability IMO.

Decentralization and DPOS means nobody can shut us down and our funds dividends are allocated according to shareholders will.
So it guarantees we will survive but it doesn't offer any guarantee that we will succeed - this comes down to a good leadership IMO and on the non-technical side of things currently we have none.
In 2.0 we are going to have a good referral system that will incentivize our marketing activity but still we remain a headless chicken asking to be shot down by the competition.