The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html
From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?
Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.
However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.
So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.
Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?
This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.
The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation. Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.
Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day 
What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.
I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.
The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.)
Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-fail
Within 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.
Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.
While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.
BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.
To quote Neil in our recent press release:
“Blockchain projects need to stop playing in the sandbox, and start solving real world problems,”
http://www.peerplays.com/news/nuclear-bunker-reactivates-war-games-protocol-on-the-blockchain/I would argue that most.. even now.. are still just sandbox experiments with very little business fundamentals because blockchain in its current infancy is unadoptable to the masses.
BM has said time and again in regards to bitshares.. and even steem.. this is an experiment. Other crypto projects are not so forthright in what they are doing.
So basically you are saying that because dilution went so long and with so little return the idea of the worker proposal was seen as just another thing that would provide little value/return is what you are saying.. I can agree with that.
If you are going to compare blockchain development to business development though, it is still critical during the early stages to have capitalization.. and companies that don't have money use shares. Just stopping dilution and not having any kind of development of any kind (beyond just programming) is not how to carry an organization forward.
The scaling quote you gave was not just because of what was done, but I believe primarily it was because of lack of business acumen and experience that lead to those decisions... something that was lacking in Bitshares, and most blockchain projects today.
It's important to note though.. people learn.. experience is gained.. and the same mistakes tend not to get repeated.
Topic: Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed (Read 25457 times)
