Apologies from a BitShares guy

I just want to let everyone here know that the loudest BTS community members are not representative of BTS stakeholders as a whole.

I want to make a point of emphasizing that BM’s blog post about nubits comes from legitimate concerns about how nubits is structured which many of us share. Unfortunately he is not known for understanding how people will interpret his statements. From his point of view he was giving an objective analysis, but of course emotionally laden words like “ponzi” taint the discussion of the fundamentals.

What is even more unfortunate is the hordes of zealots that have been slandering your project, and interpreted Dan’s posts as “permission” to do so.

It’s been suggested that Dan and Jordan should have a recorded discussion/debate to make sure we understand the nuances of each others’ designs which I think will have the side-effect of making our respective fanboys realize there’s no reason to attack each other (we have more angry fanboys but you will get your fair share when you grow a bit bigger ;)). What do you think?


I think it takes courage to come here and post this. Kudos.

There are people behind every project. Voicing criticism is alright, but It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

Glad to have you here @toast, I enjoy reading your posts on Reddit.

I think that’s significantly understating the intentions of his post. There was very clearly discussion about how this would hurt our branding on search engines between Dan and Stan Larimer.

I hate the sensational headline, but how else are search engines going to find this information for people who are trying to do their own investment research? Burying the information where Google won’t find it is the same as hiding the truth from folks who might otherwise get hurt.

Several of us have pointed out that there is no absence of truly legitimate fraud (BitBay, Cryptodouble, and plenty of others) occurring that has gone ignored by Dan’s blog. The post also occurred on one of our largest one-day price gains for NuShares; hardly a coincidence.

I understand you’re on our forum to provide marketing spin on the post, but we’re not buying that version of events. It’s well worth noting that the original URL of Dan’s blog post remains, where we are directly accused of fraud. That will continue to be an obstacle for us to overcome in Google search results.

With the evidence provided, do you really think that Dan posted that uninformed attack solely out of concern for users who are trying our NuBits experiment?

Jordan obviously speaks for himself, but I’m not sure what purpose this would serve. Dan clearly didn’t bother to read our publicly available materials and forum before posting his article (we saw his internal request for further research after the blog post). Many of our team members have already said privately that we’re content to keep our heads down and continue building functional tools that benefit our users.

All that aside, I hope you continue to contribute on our forum, even if it’s as a dissenting opinion. If you read back through our forum history, you’ll see that we take pride in critiquing problems and trying to find solutions for them. From what I can tell, that matches your approach to digital currencies quite well.


When I angrily stormed into his office and asked the point of that blog post, he said roughly “new users who are comparing nubits and bitusd should learn about the reasons to be concerned about nubits’s design.” When I said “why not change the title to structured like so that people don’t think you’re accusing them of fraud”, he immediately agreed. Of course the price rise caused him to make the post because there’s no other time he’d be thinking about it.

I won’t defend his actions any longer (or stan’s), but that is my honest perspective.

This post is definitely intended to be a legitimate apology, sorry if it came across as more marketing BS.


Welcome to the forum. I’ve enjoyed your postings around the interwebs.

toast is a team member from Bitshares. Anyway, they have better sense about Nu, not just good.

I think the Nu community should accept the apology and focus more on technical things. :smiley:

You’re all right in my book, @toast. Thank you for posting and I hope you continue to come by from time to time.

Accepted, and let’s hope Dan would be a bit more respectful in the future as I still welcome a healthy debate. We are obviously somewhat competing for the same space, but let’s do it in a way that both our ecosystems will become better as I think we are both not perfect (yet).

I’m still respecting Dan for many of his ideas and thoughts which have contributed to the cryptospace and I hope he continues to do so for a long time.

@toast, thanks for posting here and it is indeed a brave thing to do so and I do respect that.

I trust your words @toast

I wish that similar projects would be more cooperative than competitive although competition is good to make the products
I think in our big world there is room for all of us with great ideas to move forward.