I understand Bitshares perfectly. Because you use "approval voting", a very small minority of the wealthiest shareholders can effectively rig all the delegate elections in their favor, thus controlling the entire Bitshares ecosystem. This is Corporatism. The delegates (aka business interests) of the Bitshares plutocracy are funded by forced wealth redistribution carried out via taxation (aka inflation) without representation. This is Communism. Corporatism / Communism is not free market capitalism.
And a very small (but slightly bigger) group of small stakeholders can unite overrule them!
The project is run by the 101 people most trusted by those who own the shares.
The only people who own the shares are those who agree that they want to own something that can fund its own growth.
Those who don't like the direction of the majority are free to sell, and are thus not coerced to have any of their wealth redistributed.
(Votes control what the future dilution rate will be and anyone is free leave in 10 seconds, before it can happen to them.)
... or move into bitAssets which are not affected by the the tiny core asset issue rate (about a quarter percent total over the past 5 months).
Compare that to Bitcoin. How many small stakeholders does it take to overrule the top two mining enterprises? What about the 10% annual dilution that is burned unnecessarily by its miners?
How is Bitcoin handling such issues these days?
BitShares is explicitly designed to avoid the very problems Bitcoin is experiencing right now:
BitShares is explicitly designed to avoid the very problems Bitcoin is experiencing right now:
