Topic: More Bitshares Greed - page 8. (Read 12233 times)

Wasn't there a list somewhere about all the kinds of ways they took money off the system?
Do I have that right:
- They collected IPO's or donations for the development
- Then they took some initial stake of Bitshares.
- They also took stakes of the other coins they had (AGS or whatnot).
- Then profiting when merging those.
- Then they get the delegate inflation.
- The bonus mentioned above...
- Hm... and yeah, lol - they're actually selling the test-coins. Those are supposed to be a top20 coin too.

Forgot anything?
They also say they bought more shares early. They must have made millions. Pretty stunning that that's not enough to pay developers - so now they have to hardcode to make sure they get the tax.

If you guys are serious, I'd be happy to arrange an escrow for this bet with more specific details on what constitutes 'few months' and what constitutes 'phantom delegate' 

Ignore him, he is the known troll cool4school or something like that. He realized everybody takes him as a joke and so started a new account.
His only intention is to make money by pumping up NXT.

What is your intention in twisting facts continuously? The bonus is a pay in advance for the next month. It was done in order to have no expenses in 2015. Otherwise there would have been a need to pay taxes on the fundraiser (35%)!

Newmine keeps ignoring the post I made before explaining the merger:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10027129#msg10027129

Regarding the whole discussion about whether to pay developers industry competitive rates: If you don't it makes more sense for a qualified dev to work else where and just buy into BTS with what he earns there. If you don't address trade offs like this the discussion is pointless.

Don't forget the $50,000 bonuses they gave themselves.

Its your money so your decision and your risks. I would urge you to take a broader view for your own sake.

I am very active here, but barring the past few days, I've mostly refrained from mentioning Bitshares. Why? 'coz I know everytime I try to explain anything there would be too many people with vested interest who start shouting, and I never like engaging with them. I always felt bad as I thought (maybe I am blinded) that this is such an awesome, visionary project and most on here are missing out.

You just confirmed my OP and agreed with it. Did you mean the title was FUD? If so, I will go pull all the links where Bytemaster and Stan telling the community Bytemaster was going to go work for VOTE because AGS funds were soon to be gone and DACsun, the front for I3 in Hong Kong, had no money to pay Bytemaster to stay on board and he would leave the BitShares X. Let's all not forget that Bitshares X, the Exchange, or the "ideal free market financial system [IFMFS]" was Bytemaster's original idea, obligation and the reason most of us migrated to Bitshares and gave them money. For him to come out and say he was going to abandon a project because he wasn't going to get paid after he collected $millions to see the project through is greedy. That's why I titled the thread that.  He paid himself $100K or more in salary, and then received a couple $100K in BTS and he supposedly had no obligation to stay and maintain what he started? He would then be allowed to start a competitor DAC VOTE, And siphon money out of them to do the same thing there as he did for BTSX? That's like Bytemaster delegate signing all the forked chains just to be on board the longest one in the end. Don't you think at this point the BTS earned by the Devs is enough incentive to see this through? How many full time Devs does it take? I think BTC has 2-3 full time. We have supposedly 9? 9 full time and we can't get a anything released on time or anything stably released. 1.0 is already scheduled 3 months later than first announced. Let's not even go there yet.

This thread is FUD.

The idea was just to leave as default voted, which I don't like at all as it undermines the trust in BTS, buy anyway could be changed in a few clicks.

This is interesting. Would that be possible? Are there any extraordinarily large holders who could have the voting power to do that?

Maybe only due to voter apathy? So the answer in my opinion is to use a software agent or slates as has been discussed. At some point maybe require users to vote for delegates before they can make their first trade with a recommendation in the tool tip to vote for delegates who are critical to Bitshares.

You can list the developers but there should be other people listed as well who aren't associated with Invictus. You could list "Team Invictus" so people know they are part of a package but there should be other teams too.

Not very democratic to programmatically elect yourself as delegate. Its better to go with the will of the community of voters. As you would expect I'm against the proposal.

I don't think anyone really thinks that he's a scammer.

I'm not going to bet against you! 

How CENTRALIZED can you get?

it didn't ann here but protoshares/bitshare-pts has been on coinmarketcap forever.

this thread pointed out the existence of the plans to make bitsharesx: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitshares-a-peer-to-peer-polymorphic-digital-asset-exchange-p2ppdae-313873

there have been plenty of other thread talking about it during that time too.

even some threads desperately trying to point out that AGS donation was coming to a close.

here's a post mentioning the february 28th snapshot https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/protoshares-aka-bitshares-pts-snapshot-on-feb-28th-withdraw-from-exchanges-476312

anybody interested in alt-coins had PLENTY of time to learn about the ideas behind bitshares, and plenty of time to invest by buying PTS. more time than any other alt. you're right, there was no formal ANN. do you really need a formal ANN to recognize a good idea when you see it?

there are people here that are critical and call a scam a scam - it's for these people you come here.

Bitshares now spamming the forum won't help a lot. It didn't ann here - i won't buy it.

Coins exclusively using the own forum is a good way to control the conversation. I really save myself the headache. 

bitshares could certainly spam the altcoin section alot more.

in fact there was a thread about that very topic once acknowledging that not as much information is shared here as could be.

but there's so much activity I think bitshares really does justify having its own forum. it's not like all the information isn't freely available.

I personally don't come around here much any more because I kind of feel like these forums have been overrun with assholes. not to mention all the scams. but that's just my opinion.

No doubt.  Personally I avoid this forum most of the time because the spam/scam density is so high, but that's just because it's the biggest target around at the moment.

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

I don't have a lot of money, and I'm normally not a betting man.

But man. I want to take this wager.

how about 30 bitUSD?

I'll go ahead and predict that within a few months some "phantom" delegates will get voted in at 100% pay. Either controlled by the devs or by someone attempting to tax the blockchain without actually working for it.

Well, this isn't going to be implemented (as said by Bytemaster) so there's that. Hopefully the devs can be voted in without making it a default.