Author Topic: Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed  (Read 18326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(

keep away of  Steemit
Tell that to BM https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg290945.html#msg290945

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
well , it translates the same in Chinese at least . "learn from bitshares' failures " = "learn from the reasons why bitshares has failed "

i'm sure if his English could be better he'd use the word "mistakes" instead of "failures" .

Anyway , he's right about one sentence : technology can not fix dumb people .
The difference between DAO and BTS is that , BTS didn't have a 6 million USD budget in the first place , it's just in BM's imagination . The dilution plan was accepted reluctantly by the community only because of :
1. BM will perform some big thing with vote , millions of users will be using BTS , hence any reputation cost by the merger and continue dilution could be compensated .
2. Upon the delivery of 2.0 , BM magically proposed that to unleash the delegate-by-delegate dilution to worker dilution , with a misleading promise that all dilution will be vested for years , no selling pressure .

After the two promises were broken , he still convinced that he has 6 million budget to spend . This is what I called "wishful thinking" .

Anyway , I don't believe the future holds for The DAO .  But what BM said regarding the "failures" of BItShares and blame it on "dumb people" are just plain stupid .


By the way , how's brownie.pts going ? As far as we know , nobody is controlling brownie.pts except BM . He can dilute it to support development . How come brownie.pts hasn't been successful already ???
AGS fund was  wasted  dry


dns  vote  nothing added to bts

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the premined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(

keep away of  Steemit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Guys, please keep believing in a potential merger of abTS and Steem ... because telling you it wont happen (not only for technical reasons) seems to not change your mind ..

Offline cryptillionaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Still waiting for BM to acknowledge my post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22317.msg292330.html#msg292330

Publicly FUD BTS, Pump the instantmined Steemit, then merge BTS as a minority stake into Steemit?! Hodling is becoming increasingly difficult, feeling like sunk cost fallacy the lower we go :(
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 04:26:44 pm by cryptillionaire »

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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...

Quote
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

Quote
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.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .

Fuck history, look at the damn price son!  Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up.  ;)

 Steemit is most like Reddit imo

Quote
As of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.

As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7

In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

So Reddit is valued at like $15 per user?

So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.

That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:24:53 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
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...

Quote
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

Quote
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.

(I still think that business model is SmartCoins and am in favour of funding SmartCoin liquidity and yield especially.)

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.

« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 01:28:00 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline Tuck Fheman

Well with bitshares you not only get no marketing but bad PR for free ..

I am unable to find an adequate reaction gif for this.

and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .

Fuck history, look at the damn price son!  Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up.  ;)

SMF is used by Bitcointalk.  Do we not want steem it links to work their either?

Good point.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 10:44:24 pm by Tuck Fheman »
Lucksacks.com - The Largest Cryptocurrency Freeroll Poker Site in the World!

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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...

Quote
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.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline crypto4ever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
[...]
Can someone in contact with Bitsapphire please have them fix this? Thank you :)

SMF is used by Bitcointalk.  Do we not want steem it links to work their either?

It's trivial for steemit links to work with/without the @ symbol in them.

For instance, if you look at url forwarders like that tiny (url) service., they give you 2 different options in order to make links work.

steemit could be the same, offer 2 different url methods, which still show the same steemit page.  This way it won't interfere with SMF.  We shouldn't have to go to every forum and ask them to manually fix their SMF forum, whether or not, it's a broken feature of SMF or not.

Let's get steemit to accept a different url that is compatible with SMF and more generic.  It's obvious that normally you not see @ symbols in URL's very often eventhough it is an accepted character.

(..and yes, I have seen other sites using @ symbol in their URL. I am just saying, it isn't common)
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 05:39:23 pm by crypto4ever »

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano

So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income


HTML-encoding in a URL will never work (unless it is decoded by the browser, before you click on the link).
For a URL you must use URL-encoding.

Testing: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income

...doesn't work, but this time it really is steemit's fault. :-)
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
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...

Quote
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 05:12:21 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
edit: jeez, would somebody please fix this forum software so that steemit links will work?
https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income

Why not demand that the new kid on the block (STEEM) play by existing rules of protocol and fix their URLs?

There are standard methods of encoding the "@" in the link, but none of them work in STEEM: @ @  @ because STEEM doesn't decode them. Also, as you point out SMF presumes the "@" is a reference to it's users, which is one problem, but steem makes a similar assumption (who knows, STEEM may have picked up the convention from SMF!)

So this does NOT work but probably should: https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/&commit;kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income

and this does work, but only for previewing your post; when you save it SMF translates the "@" into bbcode for member mention. SMF even converts the "@" in [ code ] sections, so I had to add a space so SMF wouldn't replace it, which messes up the URL
Code: [Select]
[url=https://steemit.com/miscellaneous/@ kenCode/the-top-5-ways-to-make-a-steady-blockchain-income]Ken's STEEM article[/url]
Ken's article on STEEM

yep . @ is not a good thing .
It broke links on IM tools too .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.