Please stop changing the rules of the game

[joele]

I'm used to in Bitshares regular and surprising changes.
In Augur, they corrected/extend 1 day the 10%off date and holders overreacted to it. They should try Bitshares and they will get used to it.

[Empirical1.2]

we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.

Doesn't Follow my vote require some form of identity verification? In which case it seems more likely the potential it has will probably benefit IDentabit.

On the same topic, besides FMV wouldn't PeerTracks benefit more from an identity based blockchain to distinguish genuine fans and make better use of integrating existing social media?

[Empirical1.2]

we all can disagree on Follow my vote but we might get a surprise in one of the announcements.

Doesn't Follow my vote require some form of identity verification? In which case it seems more likely the potential it has will probably benefit IDentabit.

[Stan]

Should we not have a sub-board for user issued assets like Brownies. Right now, Brownies are front and center and as such are given lots of attention/credibility; if we have lots of assets are we going to have them all be front and center as well and have actual BitShares discussions mixed in?

Keep in mind the one of the key purposes of brownies is to acknowledge the work that the whole community is doing.  So in that sense, it might merit a bit more attention because of its intended role as a form of community appreciation awards.

[mint chocolate chip]

Should we not have a sub-board for user issued assets like Brownies. Right now, Brownies are front and center and as such are given lots of attention/credibility; if we have lots of assets are we going to have them all be front and center as well and have actual BitShares discussions mixed in?

[jakub]

Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.

If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.

No one is saying he isnt free to do it.  He is free to do whatever he wants.
But we are noticing that as a result of him having done it, and then getting partners to sharedrop partially onto it and less onto BTS, that some BTS investors are bailing as a result, causing BTS to drop.  BEcause BTS whales are free to do that as well.  And they will, if they think the value of BTS is being degraded by brownies.

And the same investors are benefiting as a result of the work being done by the brownie holders.
These are not easy choices but BM should be free to make them without us constantly complaining.

If it was me who issued the brownie points and Identabit chose to sharedrop on them - would you come to me telling me to stop and complain that my brownie points are competing with BTS?
That would be ridiculous. So why should BM be more limited in his actions than any of us? Just because he happens to be the lead developer?

Anyway, if you really feel entitled to a bigger sharedrop, raise your issues with the sharedropper as it is his money and his decision.

[Ben Mason]

In all these complaints there are so many assumptions about intentions, influence, strategy, brownies and  the reasons for BTS price movements. It is beyond ridiculous to make sweeping claims and judgements based on them.

It is impossible to quantify the value of possible future sharegifts and to determine how a person might decide to disburse future sharegifts. So instead of constantly complaining about this and that, why not try to quantify the value of Bitshares, the fundemental value of which does not change as a result of a sharegift.

[Ander]

Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.

If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.

No one is saying he isnt free to do it.  He is free to do whatever he wants.
But we are noticing that as a result of him having done it, and then getting partners to sharedrop partially onto it and less onto BTS, that some BTS investors are bailing as a result, causing BTS to drop.  BEcause BTS whales are free to do that as well.  And they will, if they think the value of BTS is being degraded by brownies.

[nomoreheroes7]

Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.

If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.

It's not that I think the intentions of brownies are bad or that the idea itself doesn't have merit...it's more just that it's obvious brownies are an avenue for controversy, as can be seen by all the conflicting opinions displayed here. These kinds of controversies need to be anticipated/avoided before they erupt and just end up pissing people off.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

[jakub]

Brownie points should be make more clear, at least the how many are going to be distributed. The total supply, etc. This will avoid creating a market were people might end up upset.

Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX).

After the whole AGS/PTS merger fiasco it's mind-boggling to think that we'd be walking this path again, yet here we are. Brownies are just another point of controversy that shouldn't be.

If the later occurred then BM / CNX did indeed decide to "change the rules of the game" by changing the nature of brownies, and in that case there is a basis for complaint.

Guys, BM is a free human being and we do not own him.
When he announced the brownie points he specifically declared that it is a UIA governed by his own rules and subjective criteria. He is FREE to do it.
And he is also free to change the rules as he likes as it is his own reputation on the line, nothing to do with us.

If you don't like anything about BM's brownie points, go ahead and create your own "brownie points" and distribute them according to the rules you prefer.

[Thom]

The only possible reason for controversy regarding brownie points is in how identibit is using them as a sharedrop target.

BM has emphatically stated on several occasions that his intention for brownies was to keep track of those who do work of value to make BitShares a success, nothing more. It is his personal scale of recognition. Please ground yourself in that fact.

Enter identibit and it's choice to sharedrop as a reward to those that help make it possible for identibit to exist in the first place. We can only speculate as to what role CNX played in influencing the use of brownies in the identibit deal. If it was completely and totally the brainchild and will of John Underwood without any CNX influence then any controversy lies solely on his shoulders. Let the whiners go take up their beef with identibit not CNX. However IMO the "whiners" don't really have a legitimate, rational reason for complaining (see below for more on that)

On the other hand, if CNX in any way contributed to the idea that brownies might serve identibit or they might be instrumental in making the identibit deal happen (i.e. without brownies being suggested by CNX and involved in the deal Underwood might not have closed the deal), then that is another story. If that happened it changes the nature brownies to not only a measure of valued contributors in the eyes of BM to a UIA with broader implications, especially if you want them as an investment vehicle (looking for financial ROI) rather than primarily as a measure of reputation and respect in the BitShares community.

If the later occurred then BM / CNX did indeed decide to "change the rules of the game" by changing the nature of brownies, and in that case there is a basis for complaint.

[nomoreheroes7]

It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%.  There is little distinction in free market value.  But that's exactly what happened.  Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now.  Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.

This is not a zero sum game.  There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist.  They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.

I think they would've, especially as it would've meant that they were following the social consensus without any controversy.

Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX). My first post in that thread (on Page 3 IIRC) was pointing out the concern, while all around everyone was busy posting their addresses.

We reap what we sow.

I have to agree with sumantso on this. After the whole AGS/PTS merger fiasco it's mind-boggling to think that we'd be walking this path again, yet here we are. Brownies are just another point of controversy that shouldn't be.

[sumantso]

It's so dumb that anyone would value brownie points the same as bts when it gets an equal 20%.  There is little distinction in free market value.  But that's exactly what happened.  Dev team is devaluing bitshares with the introduction of brownie points because by that deal, brownie points are worth more right now.  Brownie points goes up in value and bitshares goes down.

This is not a zero sum game.  There is no reason to believe that identabit would have would have given a 40% stake to to bts instead of 20% if brownies did not exist.  They have the right to disperse their digital tokens as they see fit.

I think they would've, especially as it would've meant that they were following the social consensus without any controversy.

Like it or not, Brownie was another wrong step (for us, might be good for BM and CNX). My first post in that thread (on Page 3 IIRC) was pointing out the concern, while all around everyone was busy posting their addresses.

We reap what we sow.

[Troglodactyl]

Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.

You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.

Indeed.  Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt.  Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that.  If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.

BM has literally said "if we vote on X then they won't vote right"...

I must have missed that, but that sort of inconsistency would be another good reason to prioritize independence from his (and any other individual's) authority.  I have a lot of respect for BM for how far he's gotten this project, but way too many people around here have been treating him like a god for way too long, and I don't think that's been healthy for him.  He's way better at R&D than he is at leadership and follow through.

[toast]

Please try to make just one damn thing work (commercially speaking) before screwing it off to go and make something else.

You don't like how things are going. This is why we have Voting.

Indeed.  Which is why top priority should be getting BitShares to the point at which it is independent with an effective and user friendly voting system to generate consensus on how it needs to adapt.  Bytemaster has indicated that he's all in favor of BitShares outgrowing its dependence on him, so it just remains to see whether he follows through on that.  If he does, I think it may become unstoppable, but if he cripples it with IP/licensing nonsense then who knows.

BM has literally said "if we vote on X then they won't vote right"...