Ad hominem aside, there is a reason i make that claim:
BEOS doesn't follow social consensus on airdropping.
How would people that support BitShares' core product (bitassets) by improving liquidity participate in BEOS if they have their BTS locked up in collateral?
People that have locked up BTS for bitAssets means they have bitAssets right? Nobody prevents them selling their bitAssets for bts and staking them to BEOS... Even if they must at some point protect their margin position they can freely sent back the staked bts on BEOS... It is not that they are locked for all 89 days ! You can move your bts back and forth...
PS I can only assume there is a misunderstanding on how the raindrop works.
Yes, I agree it is regrettable that folks with their BTS locked up in collateral can't get BEOS. But they have their own reward - bitAssets to sell at zero interest. BEOS can be thought of as another place you can lock up your BTS for a reward. The two complement each other, both taking BTS out of circulation and boosting the demand/supply ratio.
The BEOS project, by having people lock up bitshares for 89 days, is reducing the circulating supply of BTS. This, theoretically, is putting upward pressure on the price of BTS, so less collateral will be needed by those who do not support the BEOS project (like you) to use their BTS to improve liquidity of BitShares' core product (bitassets). Do your part!
And yet, those that have their BTS locked up are not eligible for BEOS raindrop .. whether they make a profit of (or not) of locked up BTS and taking on a financial risk, remains to be seen. The blockchain prevents them from participate in your raindrop. Hence, if they wanted to, they couldn't. Hence, my statement (that Stan calls FUD) is a technical reality and pretty easy to prove. But hey, .. facts ...
I'd like you to prove that locked up stake in BEOS put buy pressure on BTS. I'd like you to explain to the community how you dare claim that locking up BTS in BEOS is valued higher than locking them up in collateral and deemed enemy of BEOS for not supporting it (while technically being incapable of doing so). Now, do your part.
The fact is, Xeroc, that there are people, possibly you even, who have no intention of participating in the BEOS project. I have already seen many people who said they don't trust having their BTS under Dan Notestein's gateway control in order to receive the rainfall of BEOS tokens. And we are fine with that.
But very elementary economic theory tells me that if you reduce supply of anything, and demand remains constant or growing (everything else being equal), then price will rise. So you people who love bitshares the way we do can also do your part. Instead of staking your bitshares to receive rainfall of BEOS tokens, use it to short the bitasset featured products of the bitshares chain into liquidity. This ALSO takes bitshares out of circulation (putting even more upward pressure on bitshares price).
You are much smarter than I am. And have a doctorate!
I am sure you can figure it out.
We can all do our part to bring bitshares to the next level.
I have a doctorate in engineering, that does not qualify me to judge economics. That said, the topic here is that I am called troll for stating the obvious: Not all BTS holder are (or even can) participate for a 10% airdrop, which could have honored the social consensus.
Non of the arguments about BTS price changes that.
Other then that, I would have liked to not even talk BEOS anymore, but Stan went ahead and preferred to go ad hominem against me and other community members. That's not how to cooperate.
Well, I certainly don't have a doctorate - but I do have a degree in Economics and I specialized in Monetary Economics and Finance. So I can handle the simple stuff. And it is quite simple that BEOS is good for bitshares (of which I have always been a big supporter and holder).
By the way, in early 2012 I was traveling around to university economics departments and handing out physical Casascius bitcoins to Economics Professors and Ph.D. candidates as souvenirs for them at their conferences. Hopefully some of these professors hung on to them because they are now worth well over $5,000 each.
And I discussed in the comment above, if you care to re-read it, that we acknowledge that not all bitshares holders want to participate in the BEOS opportunity. And that is alright. As I explained, they can also find ways to contribute to the well being of bitshares. The two strategies will complement each other to bring value to bitshares.
I know you will think that I have not answered directly your objection. But it is not called for since Stan more than adequately covered it in the post. I accept Stan's explanation of how BEOS has actually gone above and beyond the requirements of the social consensus WHILE NO OTHER PARTY USING THE TECHNOLOGY THAT BITSHARES HOLDERS PAID TO DEVELOP HAS EVEN MET THEM LET ALONE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND! If you don't agree, that's fine. We will have to agree to disagree.
