Team members joining another coins team looks bad no matter how you spin it.
That's precisely what I'm trying to suggest is a misperception.
I'll give an example from my own life:
- I do analytical philosophical research into sign action
- I have a music career
- I design gliders
All of these "spread my resources thinner". But this is not a problem. It's life.
The basic fact is that joining another team is an act of community. People join because their friends have a project that they're keen to help with. The perception that there is competition, scarce time-resources, and thus a "betrayal" in joining another team, is just the wrong paradigm. This is community. It's intertwined. It's close-nit. And it's superabundant in resources. There is no scarcity. There are only plentiful networks. When XC needs something, what do you know? Many people come forward to provide it. This will not change.
So I suppose the shareholders of Apple or Microsoft would cheer if Tim Cook or Satya Nadella were to "co-join" another company under the guise of "community."
Their contract would forbid it, also all creative rights when employed by those companies goes out the window, you come up with a million dollar idea, be sure that it will be ripped from you faster than a crack addict after a fix
That's exactly my point -- These elements are in place for a reason. Their contract would forbid it and they surrender creative rights to help ensure the success of the company and protect shareholders.
Your point would be more legitimate if the comparison was on 2 companies , highly centralized , highly competitive in a centralized format , constantly buying up or patent trolling anything that shows innovation. Not decentralized and has one of the main focuses centered in open sourcing everything.
You are not a shareholder when you buy a coin, you are buying into a currency, not a company. You can agree with them and disagree with them, but if you are going to disagree and the reason for the disagreement is a broken logic comparing it to something that it is trying to become better than, something that has been brought up as a solution to the very things you are comparing it to, features and implementations that make it the complete opposite of what you are comparing them to. then don't expect people to actually take note.
All altcoins live or die on success of it's development team. Are you telling me that is not a centralized element of XC, or any altcoin? There are many ways in which XC is analogous to a company. There are many ways in which buying into an altcoin is analogous to being a shareholder of a company. So yes, I can point to these analogies.
FACT^^^^^ BUMP
Look at ETH team / marketing guys
They have their hands in all the major projects.
Talented people want to work with other people who share the same vision / ideas.
This is what makes people brilliant: all that wonderful collaboration.
Hence, collaboration is what makes for successful coins.
Lastly and most importantly, XC's development team is not changing and neither are anyone's energies being "diluted".
Collaboration *does not* equal dilution. So even if altcoins live or die on the success of their development teams, this just isn't at stake here. It's not a relevant fact in this discussion. XC's team is solid, top-class, and deeply committed to (and invested in) XC.
( all reviews afterwards executed perfectly)
