Bitshares Devs, have a look at the Robinhood app.

[jakub]

So you are assuming that BitShares is already mature enough not to care about who our customer is.
That's a bold statement.
I have my doubts about that (at this stage) but on the other hand I wish it actually was true.

Anyway, thanks luckybit. Now I at least know what the basis of your reasoning is.

No that is not what I said. I'm saying when Bitshares 2.x is released and has time then it will be mature enough to be marketed to the general public if it works as intended.

Bitshares 0.9 is not ready. Bitshares 2.x is as ready as Ethereum and I don't see you saying Ethereum isn't ready to go mainstream. Ethereum doesn't even have a user interface yet, and Bitshares 2.0 should be able to scale.

For what reason do you feel Bitshares 2.0 wont be ready?

It wont be ready in marketing sense. Product-wise we are surely well ahead of them.
Ethereum has already had good PR, good marketing and good relations with the media.
Bitshares has almost none of that and has regularly been omitted by the media.

I think we generally agree about the final effect but seem to differ about how to get there.

My point is this: if we currently (i.e. just before 2.0 is released) had the marketing status that Ethereum is enjoying now, I would not be worried about anything and would gladly agree with you that now is the time for third party entities to take over the marketing tasks. But unfortunately we are not in that position. We skipped one phase (i.e. the phase of having good marketing & PR managed by the founders) and maybe it's a good idea to compensate a little bit for that, instead of closing our eyes and jumping into the unknown hoping that the 2.0 release will fix everything.

You say:

when Bitshares 2.x is released and has time then it will be mature enough to be marketed to the general public if it works as intended

and I say that this time period (i.e. between the moment Bitshares 2.0 is released and the moment it is mature) will be critical because this will be the time when we need to catch up with Ethereum as far as marketing is concerned. And for this critical time I suggest having some training wheels supplied by someone who has professional experience or at the very least the community should have a consensus about marketing guidelines.

[luckybit]

So you are assuming that BitShares is already mature enough not to care about who our customer is.
That's a bold statement.
I have my doubts about that (at this stage) but on the other hand I wish it actually was true.

Anyway, thanks luckybit. Now I at least know what the basis of your reasoning is.

No that is not what I said. I'm saying when Bitshares 2.x is released and has time then it will be mature enough to be marketed to the general public if it works as intended.

Bitshares 0.9 is not ready. Bitshares 2.x is as ready as Ethereum and I don't see you saying Ethereum isn't ready to go mainstream. Ethereum doesn't even have a user interface yet, and Bitshares 2.0 should be able to scale.

For what reason do you feel Bitshares 2.0 wont be ready?

[jakub]

So you are assuming that BitShares is already mature enough not to care about who our customer is.
That's a bold statement.
I have my doubts about that (at this stage) but on the other hand I wish it actually was true.

Anyway, thanks luckybit. Now I at least know what the basis of your reasoning is.

[luckybit]

Don't you think that you running a James Clapper BitShares campaign might interfere a little bit with me running an Edward Snowden campaign?

This is why some businesses can't make money. You're supposed to attract customers, not worry about the political views. NASDAQ has people trading it's stocks from all walks of life, from all countries, from all cultures, from all political persuasions. Apple has people who own it's stock who agree with James Clapper and who agree with Edward Snowden for the simple reason that Apple is a profitable company for shareholders.

Yes you can market initially to true believers, to people who agree with you, but after those initial early adopters you have to cross over or you will run out of growth. Bitshares is already well known in the cryptocurrency community, everyone knows what Bitshares is at this point.

Ethereum was successful specifically because they are going for outreach from people who aren't typically associated with crypto, or who don't necessarily hang out in the same circle.

It might have been controversial at the time that Ethereum had some association with a former employee of Goldman Sachs, but in the end perhaps that actually helped Ethereum because right now you're talking about how Ethereum did some marketing magic.

Ethereum's magic is that Vitalik and others aren't all from the same background, and aren't all technical people, who all think the same. The diversity is what takes it viral.

Don't you think that our target customers might be a bit confused? We are not living in separate silos so there needs to be at least some basic consistency in our marketing actions.

No we actually don't. If you look at Twitter and who uses it, you see everyone on Twitter.

If Bitshares 2.0 is to have a market cap in the billions then it has to be for everyone. If it's just for us then this is the price it's going to stay, and Bitcoin is dealing with that same problem.

Bitshares 2.0 if it's going to be competitive has to be of utility to a broad range of people. This doesn't mean that any of our values should be violated, but merely that if a person wants to trade regulated stocks or simply make money, they should be able to without having to pass a political litmus test.

At least until BitShares becomes huge - then yes, we might want to position ourselves as a truly universal financial platform. But are we really at this point now?

How do you expect Bitshares to ever get huge if it's not positioned to become a universal financial platform? The reason Ethereum is becoming huge is because it's positioning to become a universal decentralized computer. Huge isn't a 100 million market cap, huge is a 100 billion market cap, and you don't get a 100 billion market cap if you're a small club no matter how cool the club is.

EDIT: I realize that this Clapper vs. Snowden example is quite artificial. But think about this: anarchist vs. conformist image of BitShares. These are not easily compatible and a delicate balance needs to found not to scare off either of these groups.

Apple users seem pretty loyal and haven't run off when Apple turned OSX closed source. As far as I know, anarchists and conformists use Apple computers. I would say anarchists and conformists also use Ameritrade, and I doubt Ameritrade cares about the political background of the users.

Now I agree with you, during the founding and accumulation stage you do want people who really care about the ideals to be the people who adopt it early. The people who really care about the ideals are already involved with Bitshares or know about Bitshares and don't want any. So if you're looking at it from a marketing perspective you have to look at it from a perspective of, at what point is your core demographic already saturated? At some point you have to look beyond the core initial demographic.

While BitShares is still a baby (and not an internet of financial tools) it does matter how it is perceived and who it is associated with.

Bitshares 2.0 will not be a baby anymore. It will be a toddler, and I would say Bitcoin also is trying to reach the toddler stage. The toddler stage is the stage where you want to court Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs, or banks, or celebrities. If you don't then Robinhood will and they might not care like you do.

[luckybit]

The Bitshares community knows the Ethereum team and they aren't any more professional than what we have.

They just had a better marketing strategy early on.

Right. Ethereum "just" happened to stumble upon a better strategy. Lucky them.

I am not demanding to have a "Brian Page" back.
I am just encouraging the community to at least have a discussion about having some marketing guidelines defining what is cool and what is not.
Unless our strategy is to have no strategy - then no discussion is needed indeed.

That is how it played out. They just happened to have the right strategy but it wasn't because they had some marketing wizard or because of anything they planned. The main thing I saw them doing was approaching Silicon Valley, going to Silicon Valley meetups, which was very smart, and making a good impression on the right people face to face.

Now they are focused on relationship building which is smart. As a result they have a lead in relationships, but it's not like they have a huge lead. Bitshares 2.0 is growing and developing relationships also.

Crypto communities are tribal, but there aren't any experts at this. Everyone is basically shooting in the dark and learning as we go along.

[mint chocolate chip]

"I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought." - Gordon Gekko

The way to market this is to market it to people by telling them they can make money signing up their friends, but we need the wallet providers to be willing to share the referral income with people referred to them, we need this capability from the outset or we are going to end up in the same place we are now.

[jakub]

Hell yes that would be cool. Get Bill Clinton, George Bush, Obama, Trump, whomever. Get former heads of state, get chief economists, get popular people who people pay attention to. If certain celebrities tweet about Bitshares they could bring people to Bitshares.
Anyone who is considered to be a big shot, powerful, elite, a leader, prestigous, it all looks good when you're trying to attract prestigious capital to your product.

Don't you think that you running a James Clapper BitShares campaign might interfere a little bit with me running an Edward Snowden campaign?
Don't you think that our target customers might be a bit confused? We are not living in separate silos so there needs to be at least some basic consistency in our marketing actions.
At least until BitShares becomes huge - then yes, we might want to position ourselves as a truly universal financial platform. But are we really at this point now?

EDIT: I realize that this Clapper vs. Snowden example is quite artificial. But think about this: anarchist vs. conformist image of BitShares. These are not easily compatible and a delicate balance needs to found not to scare off either of these groups. While BitShares is still a baby (and not an internet of financial tools) it does matter how it is perceived and who it is associated with.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Our strategy I thought was to put businesses that use Bitshares as a platform front and center.. and incorporate the refer program so we have other entrepreneurs create products like this for Bitshares and have true decentralized community?

[Akado]

So one can dream Nas and Snoop could eventually help Peertracks.. 

[jakub]

The Bitshares community knows the Ethereum team and they aren't any more professional than what we have.

They just had a better marketing strategy early on.

Right. Ethereum "just" happened to stumble upon a better strategy. Lucky them.

I am not demanding to have a "Brian Page" back.
I am just encouraging the community to at least have a discussion about having some marketing guidelines defining what is cool and what is not.
Unless our strategy is to have no strategy - then no discussion is needed indeed.

[luckybit]

When we compare BitShares to Ethereum:

(1) The product
Ethereum: anybody can implement any smart contract they want, no restrictions apply
BitShares: smart contracts are carefully designed and new ones will gradually be added but they need to go through the process of worker approval

(2) Marketing
Ethereum: carefully thought-out and effectively executed by (most probably) a dedicated team of professionals
BitShares: anybody can implement any marketing strategy they want, no guidelines apply

Is it our intention to have it this way?
Maybe I am wrong, maybe this is the way BitShares should go. But are we sure we have arrived at this decision deliberately and have considered all pros and cons?

[Sorry Ben for hijacking your thread about Robinhood, having failed before I don't want the initiate a new thread about it. But after having watched this Robinhood ad, I remembered how upset I am that this very important decision for BitShares is left without more in-depth discussion]

Ethereum didn't have a "dedicated team of professionals". The Bitshares community knows the Ethereum team and they aren't any more professional than what we have.

They just had a better marketing strategy early on. They marketed to Silicon Valley in a decentralized way while our community went with Brian Page, a marketing director, the sort of marketing you're demanding we go back to which didn't work.

The marketing which will work is to get some high profile people involved with the Bitshares 2.0 project. People look at who endorses you, who invests in you, which companies invest in you. For example when startups launch often you'll see them list high profile VCs like Google Ventures or high profile employees like Goldman Sachs. When Ethereum was founded there was a former Goldman Sachs employee and to the Bitcoin community that wasn't good marketing but to Silicon Valley it was great marketing because it gave Ethereum legitimacy.

Now Bitshares 2.0 has a Google employee who can endorse the project (Toast), and that gives Bitshares 2.0 legitimacy. So for marketing it might be a good idea to get people in big big places to endorse or be involved. Relationships with banks, relationships with governments, relationships with celebrities, athletes, billionaire investors, all looks good because it brings new attention.

There is no need for coordinated marketing, just bring as many celebrities as you can on board because they are cool and they know people who are cool.

But if I got Tony Blair involved - is it still cool?

Hell yes that would be cool. Get Bill Clinton, George Bush, Obama, Trump, whomever. Get former heads of state, get chief economists, get popular people who people pay attention to. If certain celebrities tweet about Bitshares they could bring people to Bitshares.

Anyone who is considered to be a big shot, powerful, elite, a leader, prestigous, it all looks good when you're trying to attract prestigious capital to your product. You're not marketing to crypto-anarchists anymore because they already know about Bitshares after around a year in the top 5 of Coinmarketcap.

"ex" Goldman Sachs...really bothers me.  Why even take the risk of adding these people to the mix? 

The stakes are very high and though I tend to believe in a good few conspiracies, I am trying to understand why I should not be concerned with "one block chain to rule them all", "ex" Goldman Sachs "advisors", a pyramid structure placed in the logo (though, thank god, no "all-seeing eye"), and the token ironically being called "Ether".  Any one or even two of these would not be so bad...but all of these together make me want to go back and get my tin-foil helmet...and armor. 

I will check back here periodically to read the answers...and hope I can be convinced that Bitcoin technology is not being co-opted by "low level" individuals with historical ties to known Terrorist Banking Cartels.   

For now, back to work!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3388.0

Ethereum raised far more money than Bitshares. So the Goldman Sachs employee conspiracy theories seems to have helped their advertising campaign.

Am I alone to be shocked by what's in this video @ 8:10 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5FDvzj8YX4

Crypto community is trying to get rid of those f... banksters, and one of the major alternate crypto project is supported by the worst bank in the world.
For me it's a huge red flag...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=431938.0

[jakub]

There is no need for coordinated marketing, just bring as many celebrities as you can on board because they are cool and they know people who are cool.

But if I got Tony Blair involved - is it still cool?

[jakub]

When we compare BitShares to Ethereum:

(1) The product
Ethereum: anybody can implement any smart contract they want, no restrictions apply
BitShares: smart contracts are carefully designed and new ones will gradually be added but they need to go through the process of worker approval

(2) Marketing
Ethereum: carefully thought-out and effectively executed by (most probably) a dedicated team of professionals
BitShares: anybody can implement any marketing strategy they want, no guidelines apply

Is it our intention to have it this way?
Maybe I am wrong, maybe this is the way BitShares should go. But are we sure we have arrived at this decision deliberately and have considered all pros and cons?

[Sorry for hijacking the thread about Robinhood, having failed before I don't want the initiate a new thread about it. But after having watched this Robinhood ad, I remembered how upset I am that this very important decision for BitShares is left without more in-depth discussion]

[luckybit]

This Robinhood ad is a very good piece of advertising. The actor, the message, the language - one can feel there is a thought-out vision behind this product.
Can we produce such things within the referral program and DPOSHUB? I seriously doubt it.

Example:
If I reached out to Russel Brand and convinced him (or hired him) to actively support BitShares and most people in the community thought it was a bad idea to have him associated with BitShares - how would you prevent it? I could have good intentions but in your eyes I'll be doing a lot of damage.

Having no coordinated marketing, not even some general guidelines is a disaster waiting to happen.
I've been banging about it for some time now but nobody seems to take much notice. What is prevailing is the fear of "centralized marketing" and a general feeling that this issue is going to sort itself out.

Can't Bitshares be different to different people or communities? I don't like some of what is on the Internet but I still use it and it is a global tool.

Once Bitshares 2.0 is functional then it's about taking it viral.  Bitshares 2.0 is a finance app, people use it to make money, potentially trade stocks. Centralized marketing doesn't work for decentralized products. Viral and well made videos are good enough, and most importantly if you look at Twitter it didn't have centralized marketing, the only reason people used it is because famous people used it.

[luckybit]

This Robinhood ad is a very good piece of advertising. The actor, the message, the language - one can feel there is a thought-out vision behind this product.
Can we produce such things within the referral program and DPOSHUB? I seriously doubt it.

Example:
If I reached out to Russel Brand and convinced him (or hired him) to actively support BitShares and most people in the community thought it was a bad idea to have him associated with BitShares - how would you prevent it? I could have good intentions but in your eyes I'll be doing a lot of damage.

Having no coordinated marketing, not even some general guidelines is a disaster waiting to happen.
I've been banging about it for some time now but nobody seems to take much notice. What is prevailing is the fear of "centralized marketing" and a general feeling that this issue is going to sort itself out.

Reach out to every celebrity you can but get them to be seen as investors, not mere users.  Nas, and those others are seen as investors, so for Peertracks maybe give Nas some Notes for instance at reduced prices so he can come on board as an investor. Let Nas be a referrer and bring his other celebrity friends on board, see?

If you know Russell Brand, then refer him and make him a referrer, he can market Bitshares 2.0 to other celebrities or to his fans and get paid. There is no need for coordinated marketing, just bring as many celebrities as you can on board because they are cool and they know people who are cool.