To me there's a problem with whoever (community/foundation/whoever) is 'running' bitshares having extremely little voice+presence ...

So when Stan Larimar is going around claiming to be the 'godfather' of Bitshares and to be doing 'partnerships' with Bitshares and the various scams has been pushing, there's literally no voice standing-up and saying "he absolutely doesn't represent Bitshares whatsoever, and Bitshares in no way endorses this latest scam that he's essentially claiming that we endorse". And this is hurting Bitshares a lot imo - most people just associate Bitshares with Stan Larimar and his various scams, and thus write it off as a scam-coin.

Secondly, when Bitshares was dropped from Bittrex, with the claim that it was using too much memory - it's been very hard to find any talk about working on sorting out the issue, or clarifying if this really is the issue etc .... i.e. is there an issue with memory usage in Bitshares? Is this something you need a developer with relevant experience to work on and you're prepared to pay for this? (I would probably be well-qualified for example).

And this of course relates to the point in the article - the community really shot itself in the foot by not sufficiently funding development (as I understand, this helped push Dan Larimar to rather develop EOS, as he wasn't getting paid for his efforts to continue developing Bitshares, which is total insanity if true). I get the impression there are issues with nodes and memory and nodes being down and thus the DEX not working or being slow at times, and this has also no doubt not helped things ... but again, very hard to find evidence of anyone really tracking+dealing-with these things ..... and yeah ..... it's definitely death for a cryptocoin if no one is dealing with such things ...