Dan's Next Project - EOS Rears its Head

[Permie]

It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.

I've known this to be true for years but right now is the first time I truly appreciate 100% shareholder control.
Is BTS 2.0 the first company in history to be able to say that with 100% confidence?

Shareholders of traditional companies enforce their control with laws, correct?
But what if the state/lawmakers turn against the shareholders in favour of a bad-actor?
Is there historical precedent of this kind of thing happening during wartime or some such?
The state 'confiscating' shareholder control of corporations, therefore stealing the wealth and 'sovereign' power of the shareholders?

BitShares 2.0's 100% guaranteed shareholder control is a landmark event in history.


I like BitShares for the decentralized control of the network; a network that produces a highly desirable product, at the rock bottom possible price to the consumer. BitShares can morph to fill the shape in the market as it evolves. To remain the absolute most competitive platform for financial products, bar none. It can also morph to most incentivize cooperation instead of competition.

To reward those who join BitShares and start running services upon it so enormously that it makes it impossible for anyone with 'fiduciary duty' to declare that there is more money in trying to compete with BitShares.
This means razor thin profit margins for the BitShares Corporation, in which shareholders have stake.
BitShares' profit model is to enable and capture the online trades performed by every single person in the world.
High volume, low price, gigantic target audience.

=========

Currently the BTS 2.0 shareholders have 100% control of this system.

I do not think it should be given up lightly.

[btswolf]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.

I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.

Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that

BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.

But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?

If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone .

And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.

I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.

I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?

I understand.  To be clear, I'm not an EOS insider and don't have enough insights to comment.  I'm just saying that as a BTS maximalist, I'm looking for what is the best move for BTS given the advent of EOS.  To me it seems like an opportunity to do a 2.0 -> 3.0 upgrade at some point if for no other reason than to prevent someone else from doing it without a 100% sharedrop on BTS 2.0. 

This is like Microsoft releasing Office on MacOS so that a competitor can't gain traction there.

And I view EOS as an operating system vs BTS as an application.
Although it may be better to say
"BTS is a platform for coins and  EOS is an operating system for platforms", but that's just my outsider's impression.

It's like moving our store from inside our own house to the shopping mall of someone else to operate under their new rules and not ours.
Today BitShares shareholders do have 100% control over the application, the blockchain itself and its settings. That's power we would probably lose running on EOS.
It's like moving a centralized exchange to BitShares ^^
Not saying it does not come with benefits but also not without risks.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

Nailed it!

[Stan]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.

I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.

Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that

BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.

But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?

If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone .

And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.

I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.

I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?

I understand.  To be clear, I'm not an EOS insider and don't have enough insights to comment.  I'm just saying that as a BTS maximalist, I'm looking for what is the best move for BTS given the advent of EOS.  To me it seems like an opportunity to do a 2.0 -> 3.0 upgrade at some point if for no other reason than to prevent someone else from doing it without a 100% sharedrop on BTS 2.0. 

This is like Microsoft releasing Office on MacOS so that a competitor can't gain traction there.

And I view EOS as an operating system vs BTS as an application.
Although it may be better to say
"BTS is a platform for coins and  EOS is an operating system for platforms", but that's just my outsider's impression.

[Permie]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.

I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.

Regarding the method of releasing information, fair enough. I understand that

BUT the prospect of a complete overhaul of BTS 2.0, into a new system, with a NEW 'fair distribution model' is quite alarming.
I suppose you could argue that BTS 2 shareholders have got what they paid for from Dan already, and that he owes them nothing. True.

But if EOS is a system that completely undermines the wealth of BTS 2 shareholders, then what's to say that Dan won't find cryptonitesupercode language better suited to blockchains in 2 years time? And replaces EOS again?

If Apple took investment from the public to build a iphone 8, built the iphone 8, and then immediately released a newer-shiner iphone 9 that Apple had worked on behind the scenes with their own capital (i.e released a product that is not beholded to the shareholders of iphone .

And then decided to sell the iphone 9 in a 'fair way'. The iphone 8 investors would all be bag holders.

I understand that this analogy has several holes in it but I cant think of a better way to get my concerns across.

I know you can't release certain information; but is 'Don't worry BTS 2 shareholders, we aren't going to fuck you over' that much to ask for?

[Thom]

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.

I sure hope that's true this time around. It sure didn't seem like it 0.X --> 2.0

[Stan]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

I assure you there are sound business reasons for releasing information as fast as we can and no faster.

I point out that any time we get ahead of ourselves and say something that later changes we hear about that even more.

Then there are the wishes of other partners to consider.

Nothing is done in a vacuum.

[Thom]

I am more skeptical that the value of the work put into bitshares so far will be efficiently transferrable into a new system that runs on what is probably a brand new programming language.

I share this perspective. Dan has mentioned several times his investigations in other programming languages. You simply have to stay abreast of the changes in technology to remain competitive, and there's certainly plenty of competition in crypto land.

That has very significant implications. An innovator like Dan Larimer will use whatever technology advantage he can, and if that's another programming language it will likely sever ties with the graphene code base. If that happens and BitShares is to "merge" / come under the umbrella of EOS it will retard BitShares evolutution while everyone waits (yet again) for the new tech to be ready for production. Until NYC we can only speculate, so might as well wait and see til then.

Before I would commit to hitching my wagon to EOS or recommend BitShares join it, I would need to evaluate it just like any other crypto project. I would really REALLY hate to see a repeat of the transition between BitShares 0.X and Graphene. I hope he and the team he is on consider that

At some point Dan should realize that although he may be progressing in his personal goal of "life liberty & freedom" for individuals, he is also leaving a wake of projects behind him that might have made great progress towards that with less time invested than starting something totally new, and perhaps that's  reflection of our consumer / debt based economy. Talk about getting ahead of ourselves!

The Buckminster Fuller principle that its better to invent something new and better than using time & energy trying to transform the old thing comes to mind. Nevertheless, I do wonder if we give old things enough time to reach their potential before we move on to the new.

When it comes to the FED / mainstream finance, I have no doubt it has run its course and is overdue for change. Same with BitShares 0.X, it had major issues that needed a new approach, it was not going to succeed on the path it was on.

Perhaps this may be true for Steam & BitShares as well, but until I am convinced EOS is truly superior to BitShares I will continue to support and help evolve BitShares / Graphene. We are all just waiting to see what EOS is and how HERO will be managed and marketed. I will remain somewhat skeptical on both fronts until I have more information.

[Permie]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

So long as 'the most fair distribution method' includes BTS 2 shareholders, or that EOS is not a competitor to BTS 2, leaving BitShares 2.0 to carry on running as normal.

Is EOS the next steem? If so, great

Is EOS a replacement for BTS 2? ??!?!!?



I think this is the 3rd scenario where Dan and Stan's titilating and teasing has degraded shareholder confidence.
Which makes bts a less-appealing value proposition to the as-yet-uninvested

[fav]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

 i wonder what's left for the most fair distribution method then

[konelectric]

From steemit:

dantheman73  ·  13 hours ago
We will not be doing a share drop on anyone.

[fluxer555]

Here is my guess:

We won't get any sharedrop on EOS itself, but BTS will migrate to the EOS platform and will be a 100% sharedrop on an EOS sub-token. While bitshares will be under EOS, it will become essential to the EOS ecosystem, providing exchange features, stable bitassets, and an example codebase which can be forked into new projects (with possible sharedrops).

I am more skeptical that the value of the work put into bitshares so far will be efficiently transferrable into a new system that runs on what is probably a brand new programming language.

[Permie]

Will EOS be an entirely new system?

Are BTS 2.0 shareholders expected to claim their sharedrops in a new chain?
Will their % stake of EOS be the same as their % stake of BTS2?
Will there be an equivalent of 3.7Billion BTS available to claim?

I am currently skeptical of EOS.
BTS 2 has the framework, but nobody is using it yet.
EOS OMG SO MUCH IMPROVE will suddenly attract loads more users?

I am buillish on HERO, that is a use case for the common people. Which attracts users.
BTS is a great company that produces a great product, that nobody uses.
Will super-efficient execution of these features change the fact that everyday-people have no reason to use it?

Does BTS 2 lack trading features that are required by todays fiat traders? That EOS will bring?

Redesigning the whole system, again.
I expect to be convinced but right now... nope

Why couldn't we just have TREZOR support instead

One of the main flagpoint issues normies take with cryptocurrency is that responsibility over their money is entirely on them. There are no chargebacks, no banks to call if you make a mistake.
Lacking TREZOR support, this problem is 10x worse.
Even if an experience user DOES know what they're doing, it can all be for nothing if a keylogger nabs your password.

I am eager to be corrected

[konelectric]

the interesting comments (hope brownies are part of the sharedrop):

Me to. Almost all my brownie points were given to me from BM.

[CoinHoarder]

The ICO for BithSharesX  has been one of the fairest there ever was in crypto. Why not use the same model again? Sharedrops, mergers, mining will not make it fair, just more confusing and more easier to get advantage for insiders.

I can agree with that. Unfortunately they took two steps back with the Steem model. When BM came to the forums and told everyone they should check out Steem and mine it, I thought it was simply another Graphene fork that would probably never come to fruition. Just like the few forks before that had been advertised on the foeums. I didn't realize Dan himself would be developing it. I would have participated if I had known that.