I don't disagree with you there, the ICOs seem to be a bit out of hand in my opinion. There was a great reddit post the other day that brought up a good point, that this amount of funding is likely overkill for a lot of the projects. I've linked it below for anyone that missed it.
I care only because I don't believe complete clones are good for crypto as a whole. I'd prefer to see Bitshares improve on it's own, rather than have EOS come along and clone/change minor things to compete.
~~~ embed:CryptoCurrency/comments/6jwsrg/ok_so_tesla_started_with_75m_in_funding_and/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=CryptoCurrency reddit metadata:fENyeXB0b0N1cnJlbmN5fGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJlZGRpdC5jb20vci9DcnlwdG9DdXJyZW5jeS9jb21tZW50cy82andzcmcvb2tfc29fdGVzbGFfc3RhcnRlZF93aXRoXzc1bV9pbl9mdW5kaW5nX2FuZC8/dXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9dGl0bGUmdXRtX21lZGl1bT1ob3QmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1yZWRkaXQmdXRtX25hbWU9Q3J5cHRvQ3VycmVuY3l8 ~~~
If EOS will indeed just be an upgraded version of BitShares, it would have been better to upgrade BitShares itself.
On the other hand, would devs have been able to collect capital to fund the upgrade?
EOS is supposed to be open source so upgrades could be implemented in BitShares when EOS source is made available.
Scamis definitely a strong term to use here as I don't believe the intent is to screw over investors. I completely understand if the intent is to make something completely different and they're using the Bitshares repo as a starting point - which at this point is most likely. I don't believe Dan Larimer's intent would be to cut and run with something after being in the space this long.These conversations are exactly why I posted this though, to get some feedback and discussion going, because it definitely seems like people are under the wrong impression...and at first glance it seemed odd to me. However, as a developer I completely understand using the boilerplate of Bitshares to get started.