I'll summarize the Preston link like this, "Bitshares is a ridicolous scheme because of these facts. Fact A, Fact B, Fact C, Fact D...... Fact Z." Lots of great solid points how as a financial system it just doesn't make sense.
The BTSX community response is to ridicule him, joke about him, and blow him off but not ever really address his concerns. Along comes the Let's Talk Bitcoin host Adam Levine and asks the community to try to explain how Preston is wrong. Community then trolls Adam and Preston together with no dev explaining how Preston is wrong. At one point many pages later after repeated poking by Adam one regular Joe gives it a fair try, but you get the feeling if Preston and Joe were in a debate, ole Joe would leave crying.
Wasn't interested in investing in Bitshares before, not now either.
I agree.
Preston's articles can not really be taken seriously.
In fact any article not fully embracing bitshares and dpos can not be taken seriously by the bitshare devotee and delagates.
In his first article he just bashed it without any arguments really (that was not a serious discussion that can be taken seriously). The second article was more balanced. He basically agreed that in principle it can work except for one issue he had with it (read yourself):
http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/24/what-goes-up/ In the discussion section at the bottom he and Daniel (Larimer from BitShares) have a discussion that ends without a major disagreement.
There are plenty of points in the first article.
The second article which you link two clears these things up: "1) On my motivations 2) The extraordinary claims 3) Prove it"
In his third article again he is totally unbalanced and bashed it only for bashing it. His point is that the market peg was off at the fifth day. Only saying that is completely imbalanced and not a neutral analysis. BitAssets where only running a few days. The market first had to form. Since then the price of BitUSD got more and more stable and more and more close to the USD, see
http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/assets/asset?id=USD (price history).
So it wasnt true or it is unfair to even bring it up. Sorry if you make extraordinary claims expect extraordinary scrutiny. Basicly anyone that does not say bitshares is the best thing since X is "biased" , great argument.
Given the biased nature of Preton's posts (it obviously is not a weighted and in detail discussion) posting those articles serves something else but analyzing how and if the BitUSD market peg works. Blog posts that are very controversial increase his public exposure which he profits from as a lawyer that offers services for the crypto space. I personally found the articles funny because they satirized the system but there was not one sentence that said why it works or why it does not (except for article two).
[/quote]
from the blog:
No asset rises in price forever, including BTSX. To think otherwise is folly. The relevance of the issue is that BitSharesX does not benefit from protections available to users of deposit-taking banks or other financial institutions, such as guaranteed deposits or claims in insolvency. If BTSX collapses, unless the laws of economics have somehow been suspended, depositor value may evaporate without any recourse being available.
In the interests of fair play, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the market – including current holders of BTSX – should ask BTSX’s promoters to:
demonstrate irrefutably why a falling BTSX price as described above will not result in losses as described above; or
accept that this point is correct.
Another reason why it doesnt make sense or work from the fist blog post:
That’s actually a 200% down payment. But who’s counting?
The scenario described is sort of like buying a mortgage that’s secured on itself instead of a house. Except, when you buy this mortgage (the third mortgage) from the originator, you need to deposit two more mortgages on the same home with the originator that also secure themselves as collateral, which you bought and paid for already at par in dollars. After buying the third mortgage, which is actually lent to you, you have to pay the bank for the privilege of holding and trading it.
Put differently: these transactions make no commercial sense.
And more
Abundance of weird. Absence of pro.
I guess you were reading the article form a nobiased neutral stand point, I guess we can take your posts seriously since you bashed the blog for just bashing without reading it.
More typical tribalistic cryptoX speak, but I thought bitsharesX was so different?
BTW
funding from Chinese venture capital fund BitFund.PE (that operates as a Private Equity Fund
How does BitFund.PE make money on the bitsharesX project? Why isnt this contract somewhere in the bitsharesX blockchain for everyone to see? Or was the funding a donation?
