Other > Meta
Remove Partners Sections from Home
openledger:
--- Quote from: xeroc on March 02, 2016, 05:08:52 pm ---
One point that hasn't been brought up (and it has been brought to my attention by Ronald Kramer) is that outside people that are not familiar with how things work in BitShares might think that OpenLedger has "taken over" the BitShares platform. Instead we should make clear for many that BitShares is the underlying technology for OpenLedger that that it is a public good and only the BitShares shareholders own it.
--- End quote ---
I fully agree in this point, but as long as there are no one promoting bts itself apart from myself at least worldwide with the promotion of OpenLedger it is easy for people to think like that.
So what it takes is some few people co ordinating efforts to bring the marketing of BTS outthere
Initiallty OpenLedger was intended as a way of presenting BTS to the world, untill now it is still doing this as its primary goal, and not so sure whats bad about it
allyou ned is more information on the DEX itself for instance in the entrance when regsistering to ensure people know the difference.
Point is that mainstream consumers dont care about this and that but look more for the functionality, an the idea was to give them this without too much techie stuff.
Why cant they both be promoting eachother?
If there had been an active marketing team promoting Bitshares it would have been clear already that BTS is the underlying technology, heck I write it in every single article I do, so the fact that people think like this is perhaps becasue most of the info comes from one side only meaning from Openldger and CCEDK, and this you dont change my saying Openledger is a 3rd party but insetad you need to appreciate and use the flow of information for people to be better oriented.
Chris4210:
Cleaning up the forum was a good task. I think the forum structure is still quite confusing and has too many sub sections.
Will @cass include BitShares main projects on the new www.bitshares.org website (OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, BitShares Munich "OpenPOS"? We currently lack the presentation of Bitshares top products and services.
In my opinion OpenLedger is a top partner for the the BitShares Ecosystem and should be frequently named. OpenLedger should also have their extra forum section to publish status updates and for community feedback.
Such big changes should not be done within a few days and based on a few forum opinions. What if some ETH guys would start a forum threat to change the full BitShares branding? All future branding and marketing changes should be organized in agreement with CNX & CNI directly. CNI will be responsible for BitShares marketing soon.
openledger:
--- Quote from: tbone on March 02, 2016, 05:04:42 pm ---
With that in mind, I would personally be in favor of listing the proven partners that have known, working products (at least in beta) such as CCEDK/OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, OpenPOS.
--- End quote ---
Why not do this and give a brief introduction to each one of them an what they do to contribute to making BTS better
instead of putting all in the same box once more, that what I am disagreeing with.
xeroc:
--- Quote from: tbone on March 02, 2016, 05:04:42 pm ---Ronny (@ccedk), you shouldn't make decisions based on a forum thread. And you should realize that the desire of many in the community to be careful about labeling "partners" has nothing to do with how we feel about CCEDk/OpenLedger. Instead is had to do with supposed partners that have been announced but never materialized and from whom we have never heard a peep again. Some may actually be working behind the scenes, but until we have something much more concrete, we should not be labeling them as "partners". One has even been accused of being a scam. I think that's probably going way too far, and everyone should have a chance to prove themselves. But until that time, if we use the label "partner" too liberally, this negative image could be a problem for not only Bitshares but also for the proven partners such as CCEDK/OpenLedger.
--- End quote ---
This! We very much appreciate what you have done for BitShares and would love to see more in the future!
One point that hasn't been brought up (and it has been brought to my attention by Ronald Kramer) is that outside people that are not familiar with how things work in BitShares might think that OpenLedger has "taken over" the BitShares platform. Instead we should make clear for many that BitShares is the underlying technology for OpenLedger that that it is a public good and only the BitShares shareholders own it.
tbone:
Ronny (@ccedk), you shouldn't make decisions based on a forum thread. And you should realize that the desire of many in the community to be careful about labeling "partners" has nothing to do with how we feel about CCEDk/OpenLedger. Instead is had to do with supposed partners that have been announced but never materialized and from whom we have never heard a peep again. Some may actually be working behind the scenes, but until we have something much more concrete, we should not be labeling them as "partners". One has even been accused of being a scam. I think that's probably going way too far, and everyone should have a chance to prove themselves. But until that time, if we use the label "partner" too liberally, this negative image could be a problem for not only Bitshares but also for the proven partners such as CCEDK/OpenLedger.
With that in mind, I would personally be in favor of listing the proven partners that have known, working products (at least in beta) such as CCEDK/OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, OpenPOS.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version