Please vote my delegate down

[Akado]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

Except that currency wouldn't have any value then. It would have non zero value yes, but no one would have any incentive to use it.

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

No. Bitcoin works on the same principle but it  has a value of  $3.4 billion.

Customers of Bitcoin don't have to worry about securing the system. That job falls to miners in exchange for dilution and fees. (They don't do a very good job and it's very expensive.)

But the concept is the same. Customers/Users of crypto-currency want simple functionality and they are willing to pay either transaction fees/dilution/combo for others to effectively secure the system. (The same way someone wants to buy/use a product say a Big Mac does not want to have to make decisions about the company that is providing it. Eg. Nearly every company in the whole world.)   

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

So you don't want millions of customers around the world buying BTS the way they buy, hold, spend and send Bitcoin?

Good luck convincing people of that. Even though you're right, my point is, people won't see it as such. Suddenly you'll have mass exodus from BitShares because of more "dillution". That's how people will see that.


Regarding your last quote:
BitShares is more of an equity while Bitcoin can be seen as a currency, or, once again, that's how people see it. The way to get people to move massive amounts of BitShares around is by doing so with BitAssets and other assets.

BitShares wasn't built with the same objective of Bicoin, they have different purposes so you can't expect them to behave the same. The way to get tons of transactions is, isntead of having people to spend BitShares to buy something (we have BitAssets for that), is to have people to do massive trades of assets, just like an exchange. Like I said, they have different purposes, they can't behave the same.

Edit: the way to get millions of customers around the world buying BTS the way they buy, hold, spend and send Bitcoin is to get them to buy assets, simple as that. It doesn't necessarily need to be BitShares. Assets being collaterized already meanyou're moving an amount of BTS equal to the amount of the asset times the amount of collateral needed to create the asset. However the unit "BitShares" itself wasn't meant to be used like that.

[Empirical1.2]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

Except that currency wouldn't have any value then. It would have non zero value yes, but no one would have any incentive to use it.

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

No. Bitcoin works on the same principle but it  has a value of  $3.4 billion.

Customers of Bitcoin don't have to worry about securing the system. That job falls to miners in exchange for dilution and fees. (They don't do a very good job and it's very expensive.)

But the concept is the same. Customers/Users of crypto-currency want simple functionality and they are willing to pay either transaction fees/dilution/combo for others to effectively secure the system. (The same way someone wants to buy/use a product say a Big Mac does not want to have to make decisions about the company that is providing it. Eg. Nearly every company in the whole world.)   

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

So you don't want millions of customers around the world buying BTS the way they buy, hold, spend and send Bitcoin?


 

[Akado]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

Except that currency wouldn't have any value then. It would have non zero value yes, but no one would have any incentive to use it.

We already have currencies for costumers and not shareholders and those are market pegged assets.

[Empirical1.2]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

So the you would use the currency as collateral right?

I'm not sure.

I think that long term expecting customers/users to actively manage BTS or any currency is not realistic.
The same way you wouldn't expect someone who bought a Big Mac or a pair of Nike to actively manage McDonalds or Nike.

Shareholders however can be expected to take an interest in return for potential dividends & growth.

So I do think BTS probably needs two units, a voting unit, designed to appeal to shareholders and a currency unit designed to appeal to customers. (Which lets millions of customers be completely lazy and just use BTS for its functionality without compromising the security of the system.)

[xeroc]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

So the you would use the currency as collateral right?

[Empirical1.2]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

BTS probably needs a currency for lazy customers and shares for active shareholders.

Customers get a no inflation currency and & don't have to vote, pay for, or worry about development. (But they do pay transaction fees.)

Shareholders get a share that pays dividends from income but they have to actively vote (or they will lose shares) and obviously make BTS profitable.

[xiahui135]

voting by everyone is inefficient.

[38PTSWarrior]

Ok I did it. Here are delegate.cgafeng's recent votes:



..

[38PTSWarrior]

I posted it and I saw you too if my eyes where not fooling me. No effect.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I think we should keep this in mind for hangout this Friday.

Tell everyone there to vote out this and other dead delegates.

Seemed pretty effective last week.

[38PTSWarrior]

This delegate is going up and not down. Put if off your slates and take your votes away, thx

[38PTSWarrior]

Bump

[xeroc]

bump

[Akado]

bump

[cgafeng]

Please vote my delegate down, there are some issue on my server, and i can't fix it now after try.
my delegate:     delegate.cgafeng