Price of BTS is 0.000014 btc/bts before announce bts2.0, but now the price is

[sittingduck]

So much complaining.   We need to take the marketing.  Stan is out of control.  Let's use the tools we were given and make the best. 

[mike623317]

Because the most reasonable on-ramp gateways into BTS still rely on BTC deposit. 
If someone were to develop a legitimate cash>BTS or cash>bitAsset gateway then it would be more appropriate to conceptually price BTS in terms of that baseline.

I think you have a valid point.
1. A better, more professional and easy to use GUI that also works on a phone.
2. Cash > BTS on ramp.

I also think there is a feeling that we cant get a great, finished, polished client out there. 1.0 didnt have a realistic working client. 2.0 works but its not polished, easy to use or look the part. I think we'll get there, but its not prime time yet. For example, i just downloaded the blockchain.info phone app. Works first time and looks the part. We've been in development for 2 years and we have a GREAT backend, but not front end. Yet.
IMO

[.yoshi]

I personally don't think that CNX has any idea how to market their product(s). Stan promising the moon and consistently under delivering is getting old and has damaged the BitShares brand. Half baked, incohesive marketing efforts have achieved next to nothing. Messaging has been mixed and inconsistent from the inception of this project. I understand that some of these changes have been necessary to maintain or expand the capabilities of the product, but changes have never been communicated in a simple way that does not scare off bag holders or potential users.

Ethereum (our biggest competitor at present, despite what some people might think) is eating our lunch with minimal effort. What's even more telling is that BTS is failing to track BTC following our 'massive' relaunch.

I still have a little bit of faith in the spin-off projects (Music, VOTE, PLAY), but I think BitShares is in a pretty bad spot right now.

[Tuck Fheman]

Bitshares are too difficult to use.

With each release there is something new to learn and only insiders can keep up with that pace.
I am an experienced computer geek, but I have difficulties to keep up with that chaos myself.

Marketing guy made many mistakes like starting bitshares.tv series in 240p! (with a $5 usb camera from before year 2000 I suppose).
Or by repeating over and over how the big world is "ramping up" to use BitShares already. Instead of being short and informative he decided to bore viewers to death.
I stopped watching as these series turned out to be lies to temporarily pump up the price.

I myself tried to use bitshares many times but was unable to due to unusable javascript wallet. I suppose javascript technology was a gamble to make it more popular in web ecosystem. Time will tell if this strategy is right. If BitShares were about to succeed this indeed could speed up future development. But for my typical desktop use I am simply discouraged. Each time I dare to launch the wallet I am praying to the gods, old and new, to keep my keys safe.

From time to time I also try to educate myself more on recent changes in BitShares, but I end up dismissing browser 404 pages or trying to navigate through ocean of useless information regarding obsolete incarnations of previous bitshares projects.

Finally, the graveyard of unfinished BitShares assets doesn't bring comfort to any investor.

Sorry for dropping harsh words. But this is how it is from perspective of potential user.

     Yeah, you've pretty much summed up what an outsider (and some weekenders) sounds like.

I have several friends who won't bother with 2.0 because of 1.0 issues ... the stinger is still in the skin I guess.

I'm not sure how to remove this stigma since it seems the more I preach the 2nd Covenant BitShares 2.0 the smaller my congregation becomes.

Where's BJ2.0 when you need him? 

[hammurabi]

Bitshares are too difficult to use.

With each release there is something new to learn and only insiders can keep up with that pace.
I am an experienced computer geek, but I have difficulties to keep up with that chaos myself.

Marketing guy made many mistakes like starting bitshares.tv series in 240p! (with a $5 usb camera from before year 2000 I suppose).
Or by repeating over and over how the big world is "ramping up" to use BitShares already. Instead of being short and informative he decided to bore viewers to death.
I stopped watching as these series turned out to be lies to temporarily pump up the price.

I myself tried to use bitshares many times but was unable to due to unusable javascript wallet. I suppose javascript technology was a gamble to make it more popular in web ecosystem. Time will tell if this strategy is right. If BitShares were about to succeed this indeed could speed up future development. But for my typical desktop use I am simply discouraged. Each time I dare to launch the wallet I am praying to the gods, old and new, to keep my keys safe.

From time to time I also try to educate myself more on recent changes in BitShares, but I end up dismissing browser 404 pages or trying to navigate through ocean of useless information regarding obsolete incarnations of previous bitshares projects.

Finally, the graveyard of unfinished BitShares assets doesn't bring comfort to any investor.

Sorry for dropping harsh words. But this is how it is from perspective of potential user.

[wallace]

we have a better and faster platform, we have a better technology, but user activity decreased a lot, why?

I think the reason is that the developer don't know how the marketing works.

I know BM want the system profit to feed the developer. but we must make money from others, not from ourselves, currently it seems no one use our system except ourselves.

in China, most of internet coporations believe in a words: "Free to bring users, users can bring profit".

[karnal]

without real user's support, price just depend on whales.

this

[cass]

So yea we should change that backup warning and make the backup process smoother.

 

[svk]

I can actually relate to Adam's comments about the Mastercoin wallet, I remember trying to fire that up but their  warnings were so strong I got the impression just using it would almost certainly corrupt my bitcoin wallet and I'd lose everything. I ended up just not using it and still have not claimed my MAIDSAFE tokens because of it.

So yea we should change that backup warning and make the backup process smoother.

[jaran]

Have you guys seen how the wallet/exchange changed (read: improved) since launch?

Not satisfied yet? Think you can do better? Go and fork it and do so!!

Reading the bitshares-ui license it says you cannot fork it for any multi user website unless i am misunderstanding?  So one would have to build a new ui from scratch rather than fork the existing ui?

2. Any source or binaries are for single-user use only and may not be used to deploy a mulit-user website.

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2-ui/blob/bitshares/LICENSE.txt

[xeroc]

Have you guys seen how the wallet/exchange changed (read: improved) since launch?

Not satisfied yet? Think you can do better? Go and fork it and do so!!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

It's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x.  You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes.  I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise.

I am also shocked that people expect near perfection at launch and attribute price to that not being the case. 



I mostly predicted an incomplete project months ago:

As investors, do we really think this next iteration will be the final version?  I have my doubts.  I have a feeling MPA's will be difficult to get right, but eventually the correct formula will be found.  Bitshares has been rebooted twice now.  First with the "merger" and now with 2.0.  I could foresee another reboot being necessary if this next version doesn't go exactly according to plan, but at least the dev team is willing to take on that task if necessary and not just try to patch things up if it doesn't work.

Bitshares is still far ahead of its closest competitor, ethereum, which is cli only and only for use by developers at this point.  I think we are seeing a bottom in price here, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a final push down to about 1000 sat to shake out the remaining weak hands.  IMO, we should see a bottom form and a steady uptrend develop near the first of the year.  [/speculation]

edit:  Keep in mind, these projects are still and experiment and work in progress.  I foresee a few more years before we see real production level protocols.  Bitcoin is the only project that is close.  I would say that once the block size debate is solved, then bitcoin could be considered in a production level environment... and bitcoin has been a work in progress for 7 years now.  2.0 projects, including bitshares have been around for only a few years and are much more complicated that bitcoin.

I think to summarize the sentiments.. we all got the 'impression' this would be the flying  Delorean time machine.. but we got the Tesla  Model X.. soo we have everyone going 'awwwwww.. but I wanted the flux capacitor so I can go back in time and make my project rock'.... CNX has been saying over and over.. 'yeah, but it is the BEGINNING of the Delorean time machine!'.

I think making assessments of everything without the perspective that this is an MVP is only going to feed disappointment of who partakes... it's ok.. it leaves more opportunity to those that can see everything for what it really is.

[sittingduck]

Bts2 is only 8 months from conception.   

[Helikopterben]

It's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x.  You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes.  I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise.

I am also shocked that people expect near perfection at launch and attribute price to that not being the case. 



I mostly predicted an incomplete project months ago:

As investors, do we really think this next iteration will be the final version?  I have my doubts.  I have a feeling MPA's will be difficult to get right, but eventually the correct formula will be found.  Bitshares has been rebooted twice now.  First with the "merger" and now with 2.0.  I could foresee another reboot being necessary if this next version doesn't go exactly according to plan, but at least the dev team is willing to take on that task if necessary and not just try to patch things up if it doesn't work.

Bitshares is still far ahead of its closest competitor, ethereum, which is cli only and only for use by developers at this point.  I think we are seeing a bottom in price here, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a final push down to about 1000 sat to shake out the remaining weak hands.  IMO, we should see a bottom form and a steady uptrend develop near the first of the year.  [/speculation]

edit:  Keep in mind, these projects are still an experiment and work in progress.  I foresee a few more years before we see real production level protocols.  Bitcoin is the only project that is close.  I would say that once the block size debate is solved, then bitcoin could be considered in a production level environment... and bitcoin has been a work in progress for 7 years now.  2.0 projects, including bitshares have been around for only a few years and are much more complicated that bitcoin.

[AdamBLevine]

With all due respect, Adam (big fan of your work here), if the user hasn't backed up within a certain period of time, there's a link right at the bottom that says "BACKUP REQUIRED".  If you click on that, it takes you to a screen to perform a backup.  What's the problem with that?  And beyond that, what about the interface reminds you of a very early Mastercoin wallet? 

My point was it startled me, made me more wary and set the tone for the rest of my experience using the service that first time which should have been one of exploring something cool and instead was trying not to step on a landmine because somebody just gave me a vague warning that when I blow up they warned me.   The only other wallet i've ever experienced that with is the early mastercoin ones.     

And your note about the BACKUP REQUIRED link is another illustration of my point, it would have been trivial to give people the option to "BACKUP NOW" by link in the aforementioned warning but instead you could only agree and close the warning.  I think the BACKUP button popped up after i'd been dicking around with import wallet function for ten minutes, if they're really concerned they should have forced me through the process right then.   I also found myself scared away from brainwallet when I thought the capture and verification process worked really well once I got up the courage to ignore the warnings and try.   The wallet makes strange judgements.

By the way, perhaps you're not aware that this is a reference design.  Many of us understand the point of it to be a usable wallet for the community to jump start the new governance model, for early adopters and investors to use more generally, and at the same time a working demonstration of the features business builders can design into their own product/service offerings built atop the Bitshares 2.0 platform and aimed at the end-user masses.  Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it's delivering on that promise.

The wallet is a bare implementation of a crazy featureset.  It took almost a year after counterwallet was released as a bare implementation of a less crazy featureset with more time spent on UI no question, before  they even had other people running copies of the servers and it was about that same time (a year after release) that my project developed http://pockets.tokenly.com  largely to be able to use the counterparty system without having the problems that had become apparent in the Counterwallet approach.   

What i'd like to do is put a simplified, normal user friendly (no crazy exchange features or much of the other high level stuff) version of bitshares into our Tokenly Pockets application and let people carry and use Bitshares based tokens alongside and interchangably with bitcoin based ones.  Will Bitshares be easy to work with by looking at the reference implementation for our needs?  From what I can tell, no it won't.

As for the API, like anything else clearly there were/are some kinks to be worked out.  But I really doubt it will be overly difficult for you to integrate Bitshares 2.0 into your platform.

Theres another thread on the forum talking about how many of the structural inconsistencies that were present in the 1.0 implementation were replicated or carried over into the 2.0 implementation.   I'm thinking about trying to fund a 'worker' who could come from the community and be paid by the blockchain to do and maintain the integration work, then I don't have to care as much about how difficult the protocol is or isn't to work with because the protocol will be providing the labor and expertise to make it not my problem and get it done.   I'm hoping Daniel will be able to point me in the right direction on that, i'm not really "getting" the process for doing this very intuitively

[tbone]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

The web interface does not engender trust, it reminds me of the very early Mastercoin web wallets and I was particularly disturbed by "you're responsible for backing up your wallet..." with the dot dot dot and no button or link immediately visible to actually take care of that fact really gives me the feeling that even the active participants and like "We're doing our best but this might not work and good luck getting help if something does go wrong so, meh?"

the only thing on your list of six that matter to me is #5, I am very much hoping that Bitshares offers a relatively easy way to integrate Bitshares into my project Tokenly but from what i'm hearing that is not easy.

With all due respect, Adam (big fan of your work here), if the user hasn't backed up within a certain period of time, there's a link right at the bottom that says "BACKUP REQUIRED".  If you click on that, it takes you to a screen to perform a backup.  What's the problem with that?  And beyond that, what about the interface reminds you of a very early Mastercoin wallet? 

By the way, perhaps you're not aware that this is a reference design.  Many of us understand the point of it to be a usable wallet for the community to jump start the new governance model, for early adopters and investors to use more generally, and at the same time a working demonstration of the features business builders can design into their own product/service offerings built atop the Bitshares 2.0 platform and aimed at the end-user masses.  Obviously it's not perfect, but I think it's delivering on that promise.

As for the API, like anything else clearly there were/are some kinks to be worked out.  But I really doubt it will be overly difficult for you to integrate Bitshares 2.0 into your platform. 

[tbone]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

Markets are irrational at times because people are often irrational.  Look no further than some of the posts on this thread.  It's shocking that some here would reduce this to a question of promising y and delivering x.  You try conceiving, building and delivering - under extremely difficult circumstances and on a shoestring budget - one of the great technical wonders of the world and see how that goes.  I'm not saying everything is perfect, but geeze louise. 

[AdamBLevine]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

The web interface does not engender trust, it reminds me of the very early Mastercoin web wallets and I was particularly disturbed by "you're responsible for backing up your wallet..." with the dot dot dot and no button or link immediately visible to actually take care of that fact really gives me the feeling that even the active participants and like "We're doing our best but this might not work and good luck getting help if something does go wrong so, meh?"

the only thing on your list of six that matter to me is #5, I am very much hoping that Bitshares offers a relatively easy way to integrate Bitshares into my project Tokenly but from what i'm hearing that is not easy. 

[Helikopterben]

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

That doesn't sound like an end user perspective.  From an end user perspective, I no longer have to download a clunky client.  I can just create an account on the openledger website.  I can move fairly seemlessly through markets.  I can delegate my vote.  I can easily create bitassets.  From an end user perspective, this client interface is far superior to 1.0. 

What is missing? 

1) liquidity
2) 2fa or multi fa, if necessary
3) an easy-to-use tool for offline cold storage
4) bond market - leveraged trading
5) probably other things that I can't think of right now
6) liquidity

IMO bitshares is the most undervalued project out there right now.  Markets are often irrational for periods of time.  This is one of those times.  It looks to me like the price has been basing for 6 months now and could easily enter a real uptrend at any time. 

[AdamBLevine]

The upgrade process first from the 0.4 password bug then the move from 0.9.3c to 2.0 were both time consuming and at times terrifying. Definitely not a smooth or easy experience.

[sittingduck]

Normally you pay part up front and part on completion. 

[Empirical1.2]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two.

What I'm saying is cnx has a track record of doing things to 80% completion.  If I were to hire them to do a certain job, how could I ensure that job is done to 100% completion?  The question is still out there as well, would you hire cnx as a contractor based on their project history?

Is there another blockchain development team with a better track record of delivering complex, innovative blockchain solutions on tight budgets? It's not rhetorical, I don't know but I don't think so.

[lil_jay890]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two.

What I'm saying is cnx has a track record of doing things to 80% completion.  If I were to hire them to do a certain job, how could I ensure that job is done to 100% completion?  The question is still out there as well, would you hire cnx as a contractor based on their project history?

[kuro112]

I

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

I do remember bm saying being able to import keys was the highest priority when they were developing graphene.  I didn't have a problem, but it sounds like many people are.

On a side note I have a question. If you were a business looking for development on a blockchain, would you hire cnx based on their track record?  I know they created a very complex system, but it only included about 75% of what was originally promised.  How would a contract be structured in order to force them to complete everything that is agreed upon at the project outset?

pretty much my point exactly, promises were made, timelines set, x was delivered while y was promised,

however I'm a developer myself, I understand they delivered a system as close as humanly possible to what they promised, they didnt walk away from it just because it was released, the framework they have is solid and they are working every day to improve it.

That being said from my perspective (end user of bitshares) nothing has changed between 0.9x and 2.0, i mean that when i say nothing, the wallet is just as hard to set up and use, importing or making accounts is still confusing, using the rpc functions is still obscure and requires a lot of clarification etc, if your an enduser of crypto and don't care about how good the new code is, im certain you find all of this very annoying and that is my primary point.

All in all, if graphene had delayed their timeline a little more, and put more effort into polishing the user experiences (not just a gui cmon guys that doesnt solve the underlying problems with your tech) i dont think anyone would have room to talk about the tech, because overall its rapidly becoming a solid competitor to NXT and ETH with the new features and concepts...

I hope no one mistakes my opinion on the tech for disrespect toward its team, they are doing everything they can to deliver to a hungry community... they get my highest respect for that.

[sittingduck]

In a contract you have a paying side which enables the completion of work.   Graphene is a roadmap of unlimited scope.  There is no need to force someone to do more than 100% effort. 

Any company that demands a fixed price contract will pay a massive premium as the contractor pads everything enough to more or less guarantee they will not lose money on the job. 

Most customers gamble on time and materials and most contractors prefer that.   The only time fixed price makes sense is if something is fully specified in advance and there exists objective measures of fulfillment.   Time. Quality or cost.   Pick any two. 

[lil_jay890]

I

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

I do remember bm saying being able to import keys was the highest priority when they were developing graphene.  I didn't have a problem, but it sounds like many people are.

On a side note I have a question. If you were a business looking for development on a blockchain, would you hire cnx based on their track record?  I know they created a very complex system, but it only included about 75% of what was originally promised.  How would a contract be structured in order to force them to complete everything that is agreed upon at the project outset?

[NewMine]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

It was supposed to be more than a foundation. There was supposed to be at the bare minimum a door. Couldn't even get that. Hell, a lot of people can't even find the place on the map because of the importing keys debacle.

[xeroc]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

just because people don SEE what you can do doesnt mean the features arent there ..

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

 

[mint chocolate chip]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

We have a great foundation to build upon; the future of this enterprise is bright.

[kuro112]

Honestly, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the tech isn't quite as grand as promised, I love what bitshares is doing but if the user experience was more polished from the start we would probably not be seeing such a dramatic drop, overall as we all work to improve the experience for users and administrators, lower the learning curve and increase the adaptability the price will rise again to historic levels.

[Empirical1.2]

I don't get why people take the BTC price of BTS .. that makes no sense to me .. would anyone be so kind and enlighten me... please?

Do you see now?

Nearly all crypto is up in dollar terms the last 7 days http://coinmarketcap.com/ but that's thanks to BTC being up.

So looking at the dollar value is misleading, judging performance relative to BTC is still the better indicator.

[Pheonike]

All cryptos have liquidity with BTC but not fiat. Using BTC  makes it easier to compare profit/loses between coins.  It's easiest way to buy/sell coins too.

[maqifrnswa]

I don't get why people take the BTC price of BTS .. that makes no sense to me .. would anyone be so kind and enlighten me... please?

removes systemic noise, crypto currencies all tend to rise and fall together, to some degree. It's like saying a stock beat the S&P500 by 10%. That shows it is a strong company, even if the stock dropped.

Also, be careful not to equate rising BTS value with profit, they may not be correlated. A company can be profitable and still lose share value. BTS post 2.0 has been profitable (income exceeds expenses) even though share value declined.

[well.attenuated]

Because the most reasonable on-ramp gateways into BTS still rely on BTC deposit. 
If someone were to develop a legitimate cash>BTS or cash>bitAsset gateway then it would be more appropriate to conceptually price BTS in terms of that baseline.

[xeroc]

I don't get why people take the BTC price of BTS .. that makes no sense to me .. would anyone be so kind and enlighten me... please?

[Akado]

24H low 1253...

btc is on a rally apparently

[gunailei]

24H low 1253...

[gunailei]

new users,new users
where's new users?
no new users no profit.

[Akado]

reasons are none of the above. margin traders just took the opportunity, made a profit and dumped to move onto the next coin.

[alt]

without real user's support, price just depend on whales.

[Xypher]

The exchanges haven't really moved to the new system yet, leaving only Poloniex as an exchange to support 2.0 currently.
Some of us are helping tackle this issue by coming up with our own exchanges   / API's that link with exchanges.
We could further improve the situation by getting in touch with the exchanges and having them upgrade ASAP.

[BTSdac]

Price of BTS is 0.000014 btc/bts  before announce bts2.0, but now the price is  0.00001290btc/bts
what the reason , I think
1. same of investor are disappoint with the high tx fee. they think fee is high ,cannot attack new user , people does`t want to invest a product without user ,  ,so they have to sell their bts .  and most of them are waiting for change , for example me , I wait for change .
2.it is too different to import wallet with many keys, they think bts did not pay attention to  user experience.

what is more ?