I try to learn many blockchain projects, such as BTC, EOS, BTS, ETH...
You can’t just judge that I’m a team member of these projects
In addition, to be honest, I really want to be a member of Bitshares Team, but my development level is limited and I can’t make any contribution to it.
Why do you think HIVE and Bitshares are competitors?
So are HIVE and BTC, ETH competitors?
So if Satoshi Nakamoto comes to HIVE, we have to boycott him, right?
Do you know that many mechanisms and codes of HIVE come from Bitshares?
I think HIVE and Bitshares can promote each other and develop together.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that witnesses are supposed to work 100% of the time for Hive, but that's just not the case, and it never has been. Witnesses are voted on primarily to act as trusted block producers, so the main criteria is that stakeholders consider them trustworthy.
It's also expected that the top 20 witnesses will keep informed about proposed changes to the blockchain rules (hardforks) so that they can make reasonable decisions about what changes are best for the network and when it makes sense to deploy such changes. This doesn't necessarily mean they are programmers (many aren't), but they need to have an understanding of what's being done by Hive devs.
It's true that top 20 witness do often make other contributions that help them to get votes, but there's no requirement of that type, and some of the current top 20 are top 20 because of things they've done in the past, rather than now. Again, it's mostly a reputational thing that makes you likely to be a top 20 witness.
The proposal system (DHF) is the primary mechanism for paying for dev work, etc, not witness pay.
The Hive code base was developed from the BitShares code base. For example, they still share the same p2p code today (this was the part of the code that my team wrote for BitShares). So it's hardly surprising that devs from the two chains have done work on both chains at various times and I view that as synergistic.
And there are many BitShares users who are active users of Hive, because BitShares focuses on being a decentralized exchange whereas Hive has a very different focus. I certainly don't view them as competitors.
It's not a simple question, because I don't track every "BitShares employee". I'm not even sure exactly what definition you intend, but assuming you mean anyone who received a salary from Invictus (DanL's company) or from the BitShares proposal system, I think there are two: me (from both sources) and abit (from proposal system). A couple other witnesses were community members who posted in BitShares forums. And a couple have been or still are witnesses on several graphene chains (I don't track that too closely since I don't keep up with those chains too much).
Also, I don't think you understand the term "mansplaining".
"help develop the ecosystem" != "easier and cheaper promotion of BitShares"
Also, as a side note, Dan Larimer wasn't involved in development of the gateway software or BlockTrades (the company I created for trading cryptocurrency) as you imply. The extent of Dan's involvement was we were in a meeting discussing the need for gateways to allow cryptocurrency trading on the Dex. We developed a prototype of the gateway technology and licensed it out commercially to a couple of companies.
Gateway technology was necessary in BitShares to allow for other cryptocurrencies to be traded on the DEX. They solved a very fundamental problem to allow trading of other coins like BTC on the DEX. They weren't created to market BitShares, although many gateway operators did market BitShares.
One weakness with gateways, though, is they require a reputable/trustworthy gateway operator, and this is ultimately where several gateways failed. With the rise of gateways here on Hive, ETH, etc, I hope people remain cognizant of the risks, which are similar to the risks associated with keeping fund on a centralized exchange.
I was never really much involved in promotion for BitShares (i.e. marketing/advertising of BitShares), I mostly stayed on the tech side.
I don't really like getting into marketing/promotion too much, because I find that marketing and promotion teams tend to need to resort to outsized claims about the quality/performance/etc of whatever they are marketing (I felt this happened in Bitshares to some extent and far worse in most cryptocurrencies, from what I've seen). While I understand this on a pragmatic level, I find it a bit distasteful. I'd prefer a world where we can just honestly list benefits of any given solution to a problem.
I try to learn many blockchain projects, such as BTC, EOS, BTS, ETH...
You can’t just judge that I’m a team member of these projects
In addition, to be honest, I really want to be a member of Bitshares Team, but my development level is limited and I can’t make any contribution to it.
..
Why do you think HIVE and Bitshares are competitors?
So are HIVE and BTC, ETH competitors?
So if Satoshi Nakamoto comes to HIVE, we have to boycott him, right?
Do you know that many mechanisms and codes of HIVE come from Bitshares?
I think HIVE and Bitshares can promote each other and develop together.
..
I'm not sure where you got the idea that witnesses are supposed to work 100% of the time for Hive, but that's just not the case, and it never has been. Witnesses are voted on primarily to act as trusted block producers, so the main criteria is that stakeholders consider them trustworthy.
It's also expected that the top 20 witnesses will keep informed about proposed changes to the blockchain rules (hardforks) so that they can make reasonable decisions about what changes are best for the network and when it makes sense to deploy such changes. This doesn't necessarily mean they are programmers (many aren't), but they need to have an understanding of what's being done by Hive devs.
It's true that top 20 witness do often make other contributions that help them to get votes, but there's no requirement of that type, and some of the current top 20 are top 20 because of things they've done in the past, rather than now. Again, it's mostly a reputational thing that makes you likely to be a top 20 witness.
The proposal system (DHF) is the primary mechanism for paying for dev work, etc, not witness pay.
..
The Hive code base was developed from the BitShares code base. For example, they still share the same p2p code today (this was the part of the code that my team wrote for BitShares). So it's hardly surprising that devs from the two chains have done work on both chains at various times and I view that as synergistic.
And there are many BitShares users who are active users of Hive, because BitShares focuses on being a decentralized exchange whereas Hive has a very different focus. I certainly don't view them as competitors.
..
..
It's not a simple question, because I don't track every "BitShares employee". I'm not even sure exactly what definition you intend, but assuming you mean anyone who received a salary from Invictus (DanL's company) or from the BitShares proposal system, I think there are two: me (from both sources) and abit (from proposal system). A couple other witnesses were community members who posted in BitShares forums. And a couple have been or still are witnesses on several graphene chains (I don't track that too closely since I don't keep up with those chains too much).
Also, I don't think you understand the term "mansplaining".
..
..
Gateway technology was necessary in BitShares to allow for other cryptocurrencies to be traded on the DEX. They solved a very fundamental problem to allow trading of other coins like BTC on the DEX. They weren't created to market BitShares, although many gateway operators did market BitShares.
One weakness with gateways, though, is they require a reputable/trustworthy gateway operator, and this is ultimately where several gateways failed. With the rise of gateways here on Hive, ETH, etc, I hope people remain cognizant of the risks, which are similar to the risks associated with keeping fund on a centralized exchange.
I was never really much involved in promotion for BitShares (i.e. marketing/advertising of BitShares), I mostly stayed on the tech side.
I don't really like getting into marketing/promotion too much, because I find that marketing and promotion teams tend to need to resort to outsized claims about the quality/performance/etc of whatever they are marketing (I felt this happened in Bitshares to some extent and far worse in most cryptocurrencies, from what I've seen). While I understand this on a pragmatic level, I find it a bit distasteful. I'd prefer a world where we can just honestly list benefits of any given solution to a problem.
..
..