It is a mystery. But to unravel it you have to accept a few of bitshares weak points.
Poor governance. Compared, lisk and ark make much more sense to support. To my astonishment, my little investment in ark skyrocketed a few weeks ago. By far the most hands on governance I have seen. Revenue sharing makes the whole chain super dynamic.
Bitshares is centralized. Concentrated power makes it hard to do the most mundane maintenance work on the flagship product. Let alone to develop it further.
The community is toxic. New ideas and fresh views are dismissed pronto.
The dex is too complex for mass adoption.
Marketing consists of much fluff and little or no measurable effect. For every new aphorism there is another sharp drop.
The dex is bloated with shitcoins that are either fraudulent or with little or no value. Stan admitted it: 90% has no viable use.
I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for spilling the beans. But this is what I have observed. It is sad to say a brilliant product product is hampered by its own proponents and indecisiveness.
Hi funkit, thx for your feedback/ comment. I am after the facts/ truth of coins. So for instance you mention poor governance and Bitshares being centralised.
What makes you say this, could you elaborate, is there proof of this?
I am not dismissing what you say, but I can only take into account, those things that can be proven, as the rest has to be regarded as legend.
In terms of the Dex being too complex, I would have to agree, but I don’t see this as something that can’t be fixed through using better UI in the future.
It is a working product, which is more than most coins can say and I am expecting they will improve it over time. But I would love to hear feedback from @stan regarding this or any of the developers.
Marketing is very much in the pipeline, not sure what you mean by fluff, but I agree marketing has been very low key until now. But looking at what @stan has in the pipeline, I would say things will change very soon in that respect. Which in my eyes makes it very investible right now as not many coins have a million dollar set aside for a good cause, with a big campaign behind it. http://billionherocampaign.com
With comment nr 6 I agree he mentioned that there are a lot of coins that are not worth investing in, but that doesn’t mean the ecosystem doesn’t work.
It was meant to be a factory of coins allowing people to create whatever they want. Also opening businesses or crypto enthousiast to the new world of crypto. This by itself should be regarded as a very positive thing.
If the exchange becomes garbled and messy due to the amount of “shitty” coins I agree something needs to be done by this.
Fraud and crypto/ money go hand in hand, any exchange will have to find a solution for this.
Some of those coins will become investible over time and most shitty coins will stay shitty. I foresee that the exchange will overcome any issues over time with regards to this. Again if any of the devs can elaborate on these issues it would help!
Thanks very much for your info and would love to hear your other views. Also you mention it is a brilliant product, so would love to also here what you think it excells in. And do you foresee the point that you mentioned as the end of BitShares or as points that can be worked on?
It will take time but eventually I am planning on doing all coins and putting them in some type of order of investibility if that is a word, so Ark will eventually be covered as well. Any input to put Ark in the picture or links to fit on the list I would appreciate the help.
I have a brilliant idea of how to solve a lot of the issues. When I feel like it, I'll sketch it out. In my mind it is real simple to make bitshares the apple of crypto. Simple because the infrastructure is in place. The resources are there.
But is there support? Is there willingness to take a step back and get a better view?
Hi funkit,
It would be a good time to come up with proposols as @stan is shaping the future.
I think they would appreciate any ideas, the best place is probably the telegram
, or indeed post to try and get visbility from the devs or @stan.
Weird that one person would have the power to stop a change that is generally as a whole accepted, could it have been that all votes were 50/50 so he was the decisive factor?
In the paper it clearly mentions that Bitshares is build to be flexible, but changes would have to be approved, I thought that approvals are normally done by the shareholders/ witnesses?
I have to read up on this area as I admit, I am not to hot on this!
If you remember bill butlers worker proposal, which i supported, it was debated up and down and everyone agreed it was a good one.
But it needed a certain chinese to be executed. This is centralized power. And luckily the chinese supported it too once someone translated it to him. It's just an example of how necessary work is delayed.