BitShares' Political Defense

[luckybit]

I agree that having politicians on the side of BitShares IS desirable.. when a bill gets introduced that wants to bring in some new act or legislation against crypto and/or bitshares specific, we want people there who will positively represent bitshares.. BTMs are one way to say hello.. but in the end it won't convince them that it will secure them more votes.

Politicians are human beings. They use apps, they have iPhones, they drink Coke and Pepsi, and there is no reason why they can't use Bitshares. Just introduce to them the whitelisted most compliant form of Bitshares so that it doesn't risk their reputation to use it.

Marketing requires knowing the reputations that each demographic is seeking to maintain. People from different demographics have different reputations to maintain. Activists care about their reputation in the activist community while politicians care about their reputation with voters. Law enforcement matters because most people don't want a criminal reputation but I would say activists are more likely to sacrifice themselves for a social cause while government workers are less likely.

In either case they can agree with the cause. Why? Because people are people no matter what their job title says.

That narative needs to be developed.. I am not going to pretend to know what that might be right now.. it will reveal itself more so as we see mass adoption.

It's simple, we all care about our reputations but depending on where we are coming from we care about different aspects of our reputation. Social activists might be proud that they spent time in jail for protesting while someone working for a large corporation, the government or something more conservative might be terrified of the thought of going to prison over some app even if they agree with the politics.

So the difference is in the amount of risk that different demographics are likely to take on, and the kind of risk. A rich person might be willing to risk money, but not jailtime. A poor student might risk jailtime because they feel they have nothing else to lose. A married person probably wont risk their marriage for their hobby.

There are a lot of different demographics and everyone involved in crypto at this time is taking different risks. The activists tend to be younger, tend to be less educated, tend to not have wives, because having less to lose is actually good for activists. On the other hand people who have very important jobs, a family, a lot of status and respect in certain circles that took their whole life to earn, they might have a lot to lose.

Everyone is sacrificing, but not everyone sacrifices the same thing. So marketing has to accept that there are vastly different demographics taking different risks. Marketing has to assume the possibility that there might be government civil servants in some countries around the world who want to be able to use Bitshares but who can't because it's not compliant enough or in ways which allow them to use it and comply.
 
To win them over it has to help their reputation or at least not hurt their reputation to be associated with Bitshares. That rule actually applies to anyone because it's generally true that everyone cares about their reputation so the less damage Bitshares does to the participants reputation and the more it benefits the reputation the easier it is to market it.

Also we should not forget what really drives the political process in the USA is actually money.. contributions from organizations. We all talk about this in regards to the big banks.. I wonder what a politician does when one bigger supporter of theirs wants them to do something to another one of their smaller supporters. Does he do a Mexican standoff... or do as the bigger money tells him to do? I think no matter what.. at least being 'on the books' as a supporter gives you some degree of security vs. none at all.

Money does move politics. At the same time when I'm talking about adoption the most basic part is just creating an app or network which everyone in society can use. Not just activists, and not just people who are tight with the government, but every person on the spectrum and it is a spectrum.

And there has to be respect for the different positions each person is on the spectrum. Some are taking a lot of risk to even talk about Bitcoin positively while others are risking their life savings, while others might be risking their marriage because they spend so much time on projects their spouse hates or doesn't understand.

Sigh... I'm starting to see we are going to have to attend more pretentious dinner parties. I am referring to USA in particular.. I don't imagine most govs being too far off from that as the standard. Most populations like to think there are other reasons/motives that propel them, but at the end of the day 99% can really be boiled down to all operating for their own security and power... So I think a lot of what I have said applies to most situations worldwide.

I actually think maybe the US isn't the most important place. Anywhere in the world is good and money might go further in some countries where corruption is rampant and corporations literally write the laws. This isn't to say that the corruption is a good thing, but if that is how the game works then Bitshares will have to play it or get played.

However.. in the pubic eye.. if we are seen being aligned in some way supporting the new Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.. that might indirectly garner some support from politicians as an easy way for them to show their alignment to that as well where it is favorable to do so for their base (ie. wouldn't work in US Republican ridings).

I think in terms of perception there is no gain from being associated with the United Nations or any party. Focus on individuals who understand the technology and if they happen to be politicians or not then that is fine. Anyone can work the referral program and perhaps a politician could be made into a delegate (or the politician can gift the delegate slot to someone or a group they choose?) if they side with the Bitshares community.

The point is the only thing that can protect the Bitshares blockchain or the delegates are politicians, are law enforcement, are government agencies, and if you take the perspective of only making enemies then corrupt agents, corrupt law enforcement, corrupt politicians, can pull a hostile takeover.

Just look at what happened to Silk Road. See the latest article about Variety Jones. The only way to protect yourself from a corrupt government agent is to have an honest government agent in another agency. Otherwise if all government agents are corrupt then whoever has the money in society will be able to shut Bitshares down, or take by force the delegates.

Bitshares needs influential friends, as many as possible.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/variety-jones-a-corrupt-fbi-agent-is-hunting-me-so-im-turning-myself-in

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

How about sharedropping on major politicians?  Imagine hundreds of congress and senate delegates who hold bitshares and other Graphene assets.

That wouldn't be effective right now. First you have to educate politicians on what it is. You have to do stuff like putting the BTM machines around where politicians work so they can be exposed to Bitshares. You have to market some BitAssets, smartcoins, and other features directly to their demographic.

But you have to not think of politicians are politicians. Politicians are human beings. Human beings all have similar needs. Also it's not just about appealing to politicians, but anyone in government. As long as Bitshares is compliant with the laws then it's particularly not so hard to appeal to people in government.

And over time laws can be changed if Bitshares has the influence to do that, but it's going to take having alliances early on. It's called vertical integration and it is actually a common strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration#Apple

They are human beings yes.. however their place in government is not to make sure laws are being complied with, it's that they are doing things to get elected. They are taking measures based on what they believe will garner them more support from their districts in order to secure their power.

I agree that having politicians on the side of BitShares IS desirable.. when a bill gets introduced that wants to bring in some new act or legislation against crypto and/or bitshares specific, we want people there who will positively represent bitshares.. BTMs are one way to say hello.. but in the end it won't convince them that it will secure them more votes. That narative needs to be developed.. I am not going to pretend to know what that might be right now.. it will reveal itself more so as we see mass adoption.

Also we should not forget what really drives the political process in the USA is actually money.. contributions from organizations. We all talk about this in regards to the big banks.. I wonder what a politician does when one bigger supporter of theirs wants them to do something to another one of their smaller supporters. Does he do a Mexican standoff... or do as the bigger money tells him to do? I think no matter what.. at least being 'on the books' as a supporter gives you some degree of security vs. none at all.

Sigh... I'm starting to see we are going to have to attend more pretentious dinner parties. I am referring to USA in particular.. I don't imagine most govs being too far off from that as the standard. Most populations like to think there are other reasons/motives that propel them, but at the end of the day 99% can really be boiled down to all operating for their own security and power... So I think a lot of what I have said applies to most situations worldwide.

However.. in the pubic eye.. if we are seen being aligned in some way supporting the new Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.. that might indirectly garner some support from politicians as an easy way for them to show their alignment to that as well where it is favorable to do so for their base (ie. wouldn't work in US Republican ridings).

Man.. securing stuff is tricky business.

[luckybit]

How about sharedropping on major politicians?  Imagine hundreds of congress and senate delegates who hold bitshares and other Graphene assets.

That wouldn't be effective right now. First you have to educate politicians on what it is. You have to do stuff like putting the BTM machines around where politicians work so they can be exposed to Bitshares. You have to market some BitAssets, smartcoins, and other features directly to their demographic.

But you have to not think of politicians are politicians. Politicians are human beings. Human beings all have similar needs. Also it's not just about appealing to politicians, but anyone in government. As long as Bitshares is compliant with the laws then it's particularly not so hard to appeal to people in government.

And over time laws can be changed if Bitshares has the influence to do that, but it's going to take having alliances early on. It's called vertical integration and it is actually a common strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration#Apple

[luckybit]

.
This suggestion is made with what I consider the very valid assumption that any alliance with governments will require negotiation that will necessarily include technical and functional compromise -
I do not think any government involvement at this point of time - or anytime soon (excluding FMV), will offer any ROI for what our goals should be - which would be little more than subsidizing the 2nd vacation homes, mistresses and drug addictions of a few lobbyists and politicos at great financial and political/value cost.

There is a difference between "government involvement" which isn't what I was talking about, and having allies in government. Government involvement is when governments try to take control of the source code. I'm totally against that.

On the other hand having allies in government is critical. If Coke or Pepsi have allies around the world and have friends in governments around the world, it is helpful to their business and allows them to have advantages over their competitors.

Microsoft or Linux have also made deals with governments to have governments use their operating system. In these relationships governments had no real say in how they do business.

In the end in order to have political protection you need people in government who own Bitcoins, who own Bitshares, who can be lobbied, who have some reason to care about Bitshares. I think government employees or politicians have very much power like you think they do, the power is actually in special interest groups, corporations, religious groups, etc.

Politicians simply follow what the polls say and they take money in exchange for influence. Nothing stops Bitshares from gaining influence. If the US government is a bit too strong there are many governments all around the world for Bitshares to form an alliance with. In my opinion it should happen as early as possible because it reduces the likelihood of Bitshares being banned or politically attacked in the future.

Ideology isn't important to politicians and not as important to government employees. Anarchists are fine but there aren't enough anarchist parties around the world to protect Bitshares.

[fuzzy]

We just need to make sure we have our own strong media outlets imho. 

When you really get down to it, the media is the biggest tool govs use first.  Usually well before attacking someone physically or imprisoning them, you see the media demonizing them and providing little to no relevant context. 

So making sure the content we create focuses on positive solutions as opposed to laying blame.  Let the historical record give all the proof we need and let us make sure it is replicated everywhere. 

[ElMato]

3. Keep as much distance as possible from existing political regimes as long as functionally possible.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/why-silicon-valley-should-not-normalize-relations-washington-dc

I don't really agree. I think you need as many allies as you can get in as many governments as you can reach. Power is power, whether it's in government, church, corporate, or clan.

Do you want to be ideologically pure and lose because your competitor made some alliance to give themselves an unfair advantage over your business? If what you are doing is important enough to the world then losing might not be an option.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I believe that consistent and wide spread dissemination of information and involvement in other communities in support of them is the way.

We should be consistently sponsoring and supporting other community events and groups.

The fundamental consensus of everyone needs to be 'we are the good guys'... and thus anybody attacking us are 'bad'.

For this everyone needs to have at least one degree of contact with BitShares that they can personally reference to say 'oh yeah I know them/that, they are great..'

In other words the motif is not to have people 'in BitShares' but to have people that are friends of BitShares so far as our mission in securing the network is concerned.

For some people they don't see the difference.. just stop and think about how many companies and people you never bought from or met that you have impressions and opinions on. Likewise, we shouldn't have the expectation that people who are our supporters are our users. Users are the players on the ice.. the friends we want/need are the watchers in the stands cheering for us. Hockey metaphor.. I'm Canadian after all.

I am working with others on this in my own efforts. I have created many more friends of BitShares than I have users... so know that even those that don't get in on the game are still valuable to us for securing the network in the political sense.

[Ben Mason]

Really excellent ideas already mention....just to add....

Awareness, access, utility, ease of use and cost are the keys to sustained mass adoption.....which is ultimately the best defense.

A continued inclusive attitude towards partners, continuing to ensure aligned economic incentives and the referral system are critical to super-charging adoption.

We need to make an effort to control the narrative.... the message being along the lines of, trusting humans always ends badly without unbreakable, transparent rules that cannot be subverted over time. Bitshares, you can trust. Writing helpful, non-malicious software is synonymous with free speech. There is much more we can do here.

[donkeypong]

Hire some lobbyists.

[carpet ride]

How about sharedropping on major politicians?  Imagine hundreds of congress and senate delegates who hold bitshares and other Graphene assets.

[r0ach]

As I mentioned in other posts, what I think needs to be done is an automated process of delegate selection based on collateral bids.  The system would function like a virus rather than requiring a centralized vetting process.  It's immune to govt legislation because it's like trying to get rid of BitTorrent at that point.

[bobmaloney]

3. Keep as much distance as possible from existing political regimes as long as functionally possible.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/why-silicon-valley-should-not-normalize-relations-washington-dc

I don't really agree. I think you need as many allies as you can get in as many governments as you can reach. Power is power, whether it's in government, church, corporate, or clan.

Do you want to be ideologically pure and lose because your competitor made some alliance to give themselves an unfair advantage over your business? If what you are doing is important enough to the world then losing might not be an option.

This suggestion was made in the spirit of what Rodgers outlined and predicted (and what eventually came to be for Silicon Valley) in his white paper.

I'm not suggesting a kind of naive appeal to remain "pure" - but rather - only an attempt to remain as "pure" as possible, as long as possible, which I see as the most pragmatic approach toward making a paradigm changing platform.

This suggestion is made with what I consider the very valid assumption that any alliance with governments will require negotiation that will necessarily include technical and functional compromise - let's delay that as long as reasonably possible in order to make the maximum possible difference - and to set any negotiation (or, better yet - a feigned and slowly delayed negotiation) at a point in time where the odds be ever in our favor 

I do not think any government involvement at this point of time - or anytime soon (excluding FMV), will offer any ROI for what our goals should be - which would be little more than subsidizing the 2nd vacation homes, mistresses and drug addictions of a few lobbyists and politicos at great financial and political/value cost.

If any political alliances are ever needed, let them be something grown from the ground up - due to necessity and on an as-needed basis.

Any premature attempt to design alliances and government coordination as part of our foundation and we might as well throw in the towel, because we have already lost.

[luckybit]

We're doing good to ally with political parties who protect internet freedom. For instance, my brother and I passed this proposal on cryptoeconomy politics here in Norway. Adam of Follow My Vote was also speaking there, making them realize that the scope of this technology is wide and relevant to their immediate concerns. There are all kinds of parties who are essentially up agains the same enemy who we could ally with, including Bitnation, The Wikileaks Party, even Occupy (after all, people like Russell Brand is flirting with Max Keiser).

Ally with anyone who will accept Bitshares technology. They don't have to be ideologically aligned because in politics ideology doesn't really matter all that much. Politicians deal with lobbyists, and as long as Bitshares is good for the economy, it's just another technology to most politicians.

Internet freedom activists are definitely people to politically ally with, but you have to ally with whomever is in the establishment. That means whichever party is in control and that you have contacts in. It doesn't necessarily have to be the obvious libertarian or pirate party, it just has to be any party where you have a Bitshares participant has a friend.

A wide net is better than a direct line if you're trying to survive. Just look at successful companies and you'll see they work with whatever party is willing.

[CLains]

We're doing good to ally with political parties who protect internet freedom. For instance, my brother and I passed this proposal on cryptoeconomy politics here in Norway. Adam of Follow My Vote was also speaking there, making them realize that the scope of this technology is wide and relevant to their immediate concerns. There are all kinds of parties who are essentially up against the same problems who we could ally with, including Bitnation, The Wikileaks Party, even Occupy (after all, people like Russell Brand is flirting with Max Keiser).

[luckybit]

1. Find a way to address and incorporate "the other 6 billion" into the Bitshares network (probably not possible with high transaction fees).

2. Have some witnesses controlled by respected charity organizations.

3. Keep as much distance as possible from existing political regimes as long as functionally possible.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/why-silicon-valley-should-not-normalize-relations-washington-dc

There are different approaches for different demographics. Most teams seem to be focusing exclusively on one or the other to the point that it is splitting communities. I like Bitshares because it seems to focus on both.

To focus on activists you have to develop very experimental, highly controversial, very useful software, for political activists. You can approach this in a fairly neutral way like what Bitnation is doing, or you can build something like decentralized market places, or you can build something to help people in Greece to survive their economic crisis.

To focus on the mainstream, these are people who aren't protesting the establishment because they are the establishment. The establishment tends to have the majority of the money in any country, and the majority of the political power, so if you don't appeal to them then you'll never have the billion dollar market cap, you'll never see wide usage, you'll never have the liquidity to make something like Bitshares useful for the world.

So you end up having to appeal to different groups with different interests. Bitcoin developers I believe are stuck trying to do that and are focused mainly on activists, but that also would explain why the Bitcoin price isn't rising. In order to bring in big money you need to appeal to the main stream and bring in viral adoption.

My opinion is that the team should develop a strategy to appeal to the world, which includes activists and establishment. It's not an either or situations like how it sometimes is presented.

3. Keep as much distance as possible from existing political regimes as long as functionally possible.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/why-silicon-valley-should-not-normalize-relations-washington-dc

I don't really agree. I think you need as many allies as you can get in as many governments as you can reach. Power is power, whether it's in government, church, corporate, or clan.

Do you want to be ideologically pure and lose because your competitor made some alliance to give themselves an unfair advantage over your business? If what you are doing is important enough to the world then losing might not be an option.