Thank you, Dan.
Would you consider doing a full, deep-dive post about this history? I would personally love to have a post I could send to potential investors with a detailed perspective on the mistakes made, the lessons learned, and the harsh realities which were unavoidable. I don't mean to sound accusatory, I just want more truth out there and some people are avoiding investment in DPOS technology purely because of their subjective (and possibly incorrect) understanding of the past. I've had conversations with people who admit DPOS is by far the best blockchain technology in existence today, but they still don't want to see it succeed because of their personal experiences. If there was a post I could send them with a detailed history of what happened, why, and what the results/lessons learned were, that would be quite helpful.
Thanks again for the amazing things you've already done and are continuing to do. I truly believe these are historic times, and you are doing historically significant work.
It shows maturity to just avoid the drama that would be caused by filling people in on the details of what happened between two people of different perspectives. They parted. The end.
We're talking billions of dollars at stake here between EOS, Cardona, STEEM, ETH, and BitShares. To not understand the perspectives of the individuals with most of the power within those systems is to be an uniformed investor, trader, or speculator.
Those who can stomach the drama and distill it to facts which give hints about future actions are the ones who do well. Those who blindly invest along with the crowd often get rekt in the long-run.
True maturity involves having difficult conversations about difficult topics without creating drama.
Trillions
Really Luke, don't you think Dan's time is better spent on solving the issues of the present and future? If those investor friends want to cut their noses off to spite their faces, isn't that up to them. They have all the information they need to make reasonable decisions just like you, don't they?
This is what I'm trying to obtain, because the information isn't (IMO) readily available. Some people were part of this from the beginning and experienced this all first-hand. What baffles me is I know people on both sides of this situation that were part of BitShares from the beginning who have opposite perspectives. Some trust Dan completely and see no wrong doing (other than some forgivable mistakes) while others are convinced he and those associated with him are money-grabbing scammers. Clearly there's some information asymmetry going on here. They both can't be right.
I want to bridge that gap by seeing more facts.
As to Dan's time, he's smarter than I am, so I'll leave it to him to determine how to best spend his time. I'm simply making a request as an investor and someone who talks to other investors. An hour or two to write down a history with a lessons learned from his perspective might bring in more support for the things he wants to build which could multiply his efforts.
Does it honestly scan with you that dan is a money grabbing scammer? It saddens me that some have this perspective and I wish it wasn't so for their sake more than anything. What I saw during Bitshares lifetime so far was a person doing his best to navigate the rapidly shifting sands of this new frontier with integrity. Bear in mind that from the outset, there were attacks from trolls and those attempting to manipulate the situation for their benefit. They were sometimes successful in exploiting any weakness or mistake that the team behind Bitshares made. The simple truth is that you will never be able to unpick the genuine gerievance from the faux grievance, you will never be able to unpick the truth of Dan's motivations from the troll slander. Investors who felt they didn't make what they thought they would in the time-scale they wanted feel agrieved and that is their right. However, those experiences do not make Dan responsible or a scammer. It is a waste of time to dig around in the past when subjective positioning is unlikely to change whatever. There will simply be a raking over of old wounds and a loss of precious time. The smart thing to do is move on and concern ourselves with the present (there's enough going on that needs analysis right now) for the sake of the future. Lessons have been learned, Dan has said so himself. Investment is ideally done objectively and dispassionately. Dan's tech speaks for itself. I suggest an investor that is not interested in that, at this embryonic stage, is not making an objective decision.
Finally, I believe Dan has been audited and he was most certainly not revealed to be a money grabbing scammer. Though plenty of those do exist and are continually preying upon people in this space....many of them on Steemit.
This isn't about me (I've already made my investing decisions by backing STEEM, BitShares, and EOS). It's about those who are still trying to make up their minds. I agree, the trolls will never be convinced otherwise. This isn't about them either. This about the genuine investors who want all the data available to make good decisions. Just relying on the capabilities of the technology alone without also recognizing potential systemic weaknesses either from leadership or from previous failures of the team involved which haven't been accounted for is short-sighted (IMO).
You mentioned Dan being audited. Do you have a link with more information on that? I'm not sure it's super relevant to me personally as Dan can make as much money as the free markets will pay him, as long as it's true to his principles via voluntary trade, but it may be relevant for some. I run the weekly exchange transfer report, as an example, and every week Dan is at the top of the withdrawal list for a lot of money. Some people don't understand that and are bothered by it, thinking he set this up just to take the lion's share of investors money for himself. Is that true? Only Dan can say. Only Dan can clarify what his actual intentions are and leave it to others to believe him or not.
If lessons were learned, I'd love for them to outlined in detail. As a developer myself, doing post-mortems on failed projects or deploys is important to avoid making the same mistakes again. With that public, there'd be no secret history or unknown concern that often keeps investors from getting involved.
Either way, as you said, it's up to Dan as to whether or not this is worth his time. I'm just giving my opinion and there's no malice in it.
I appreciate there is no malice. I would absolutely not have a discussion like this with someone I thought was not being sincere. On the contrary, it's because I respect you that I'm giving my view. I agree with those who have suggested that all the information is there and available for you or anyone else to explore and form solid conclusions upon. Dan has already said what needs to be said for anyone prepared to hear it. That simply leaves those that are demanding to be convinced, those that can't or won't do their own research, those that want acrimony, gossip or to further manipulate and finally those that desperately want Dan to fail, integrity or not. Each of those motives or positions is a total waste of anyone's time, let alone Dan's. Also, the assumption that more detail and additional subjective statements and analysis of an issue that has clearly already polarised opinion will lead to improved investment decisions for those already unable to make one is flawed. How many more early investors does the crypto space need? Surely we need the users who will become investors and they will judge the dapps, not the conflicting subjective views of a piece of technical history.
As you have said though, none of this is down to us to decide, but I hope, despite your genuine arguments around clarity, that Dan leaves it alone and continues to refer to that which is already documented. At least until such a time that the world and everyone in it is free!! Feel free to respond but just wanted to say thank you for your time and the courteous debate.
If, in your perspective, this information is readily available, can you send me the top links you would recommend to an investor who has concerns?
I've been involved in cryptocurrency for more than 5 years now, and the lack of clarity on what was going on kept me away from the early protoshares/BitShares stuff. From my perspective, as someone who really does want to know more about what happened, what was learned, and what mistakes won't be repeated, this stuff isn't clear and digging deeply into forum threads isn't the most effective way to clarify things (IMO). The valuations of these products are far more than just their technical capacity. The world views, opinions, and historical actions of those involved play a huge role. It's not drama for drama's sake but critically important data points used for current and future valuations.
Thank you also. I've enjoyed discussing this with you.
I'm sorry Luke, I don't have a silver bullet link. For me, the information has been gathered over time directly from the Bitshares forum where for a period, I think I read virtually everything which gave me context for my conclusions. I appreciate how hard it would be to trawl through all that. I wish I could help you more.
Should I be sad reading all this or should I accept that everyone makes up their own mind and whatever truth they perceive as their truth? Maybe I want to make people happy. There's always a sollution.
Truth is the truth no matter what people choose to think. I don't think you should be sad. All this is human nature playing out. It's kind of why we need robust blockchains. Try to focus on the positives and on the fundamentals.