You say the Larimers are in control, yet in actuality Bitshares stakeholders are happy to have CNX in control. This is evidenced by witness voting, as CNX can be overruled at any time if the stakeholders so choose (since they own less than a 13% stake.) Bitshares stakeholders trust CNX to do the right thing and deliver because they have in the past and have proven themselves, and in the event they do not then stakeholders can remove them from power. That is the beauty of delegated proof of stake, and how it is supposed to work.

That's cool if you don't like that, but to call them liars and thieves and/or Bitshares a scam because of that is disingenuous in the least considering everything is out in the open and done transparently.

Preston Byrne is an idiot FUDer that just wanted attention like you, and he has been proven wrong thus far since SmartCoins (formerly bitAssets) have maintained their peg for almost two years now. Linking to those blog posts, which are heavily weighted in personal opinion, as definitive proof that Smartcoins are broken is hilarious. Especially considering there is factual data that proves Smartcoins have closely resembled the value of their real life counterparts for almost 2 years. Yet, those opinion pieces are obviously correct so lets disregard all of the factual data and base our opinion on someone else's opinion.  

In the case of a substantial fall in value of BTSX, BitAssets will be under-collateralised and will start trading under par as they (being BTSX derivatives, and not actual assets) will not entitle the holder of the in-the-money side of the trade to obtain sufficient USD on settlement to actually recover the expected dollar equivalent of what they are entitled to under the contract. The collateral pool will, at some point, run out of firepower. Price-fixing through unilateral delegate intervention will result in market failure as mispriced trades will be unable to find a counterparty. Nobody is going to spend $1.00 to buy BitUSD which they will only be able to dispose of for, e.g., $0.25.

Irrespective of supply-side intervention through the “DAC” (printing new BTSX/BitAssets or removing them from circulation), if the market abandons the platform in a “black swan” event (which to date virtually every single cryptocurrency in existence, including arguably Bitcoin, has experienced) depositors, investors, and BitAsset holders alike would, in my view, incur substantial losses. These losses would arise not only from the collapse in the value of the BitAssets themselves as described above but also from the fall in value of the BTSX collateral which is locked up in these transactions, as against a reference unit of value with an independent existence outside of the BTSX ecosystem (USD/Bitcoin/whatever).

No asset rises in price forever, including BTSX. To think otherwise is folly. The relevance of the issue is that BitSharesX does not benefit from protections available to users of deposit-taking banks or other financial institutions, such as guaranteed deposits or claims in insolvency. If BTSX collapses, unless the laws of economics have somehow been suspended, depositor value may evaporate without any recourse being available.

Synereo is largely unproven at this point. So you're telling me you've read the source code line for line and understand it already? LOL. You should probably give it more than a few months before declaring that there are no backdoors.. no one reputable has been able to review the source code yet. Let's wait and see if they deliver before championing them, because at this point it's vaporware. Many projects have released open sourced code and have yet to launch after years of development. Stating vaporware is a better investment than a cryptocurrency that is battle and time tested, has built a network effect, community, services, supporting companies and ecosystem, etc... is a ridiculous statement in which rationality is negated by your personal vendetta against Bitshares.