Author Topic: Post-Merger Landscape for 3rd Party DACs  (Read 973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Welcome to the community!

How will social consensus work in the future (if AGS PTS holders are merged
into BTS). I have up to this point thought of the social
consensus is sacrosanct - in future, how can we determine the holders of
AGS/PTS or will the social consensus need to evolve to cover the whole of BTS
holders as a result of the proposed merger?  How will any new social consensus
achieve consensus?
My guess would be that there will be a GENESIS asset on the blockchain where
people agree on to be used as basis for future snapshots.

It seems that the VOTE DAC has new features that has everyone very excited.
The question here is  - those features not to be included in the BitShares
toolkit for Intellectual Property or other reasons?   Or will they be
maintained in the BitShares DAC code (which itself is derived from the
BitShares Toolkit)?  Would a BitShares code base include
significant additions over and above the BitShares Toolkit base.
VOTE will be a part of BTS .. and as such there cannot be IP .. it simply has
to be implemented on the blockchain .. maybe as a DAPP ..

Further, as they are aiming for the elections in California, they better not use words like
close-source, or Intellectual Property .. that's basically against eveything
this community wants to achieve.

As far as I know, the toolkit will be used as a basis for BTS and you can think
of other DACs as (open source) Applications running on top of it.

Bytemaster has said that BitShares Toolkit will continue to be the developed
and maintained.   I have heard it mentioned that one of the reasons for the
proposed merger is to allow BitSharesX to utilize the marvelous work done for
the other DACS?  Why cannot that be done at present,  notwithstanding issues of
merging, testing & therefore,  managing the fork.   Or is there an issue with
code management that is "forcing" the different DACs together?   Or is it
simply to enjoy the network effect of combining the functions?
It's not about the code .. it's about building the best DAC and competition.
VOTE (if it was a separated DAC) would have ended up as a REAL competitor to
BTSX as it contains all features of BTSX plus more.

Quote
There seems to me to be a down side to future user issued assets on BTS
block-chain.  In a merged block-chain,  delegates will need to agree to provide
a feed for assets,  including new user issued assets if the market peg is to be
initially maintained.  This would seem to make the introduction of user issued
assets very difficult,  as it would require the co-ordination & contact with
101 delegates to "sell"" them on the new idea.  While a market view would say
that this is simply the way that it should be,   in practice it would seem
difficult to get this organised - hence driving people with new business ideas
back to creating a new DAC.   

User-issued assets DO NOT need a feed .. only assets that are pegged to some real-world entity need a price feed.
User-issued assets cannot be shorted .. they can be sold and traded like common stock. no market peg => no feed.


What role will of BitUSD (& similar assets) play in the future.  I have in this
forum  of the potential for 3rd Party DACs to utilize (piggy-back) onto BitUSD
etc    rather than trying to maintain their own market &/or peg.   However I
guess that is easily done by an appropriately developed interface rather than
any explicit additional support (current APIs).
That is a very good question .. and I do not know the answer for it.

We might end up with several DACs each having their own bitUSD traded on their internal market.
Together with atomic-cross-chain trading this might be no "real" issue .. however opinions differe here.

It might also happen completely different and we might end up with something
similar to side-chains/parallel chains with delegates participating in multiple chains.

By the way, I have posted this in the General Discussion area as it seems to go to the core of one aspect of the merger proposals.
*agreed*

Offline slender

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
The concept of BitShares to provide a platform on which to build DACs is amazingly appealing.   I can see the benefits of the proposal to greatly simplify  the world of AGS & PTS,  but I would like to raise the issue of  how this will impact future 3rd Party DACs.

We can leave the discussion as to whether any new DAC should consolidate to the "super" BitShares DAC.   For discussion purposes, let's suppose we see a very different market to address with sufficiently different needs.  What will the new post-merger world look like for 3rd Party DACs.

I have some questions and comments...

  • How will social consensus work in the future (if AGS PTS holders are merged into BTS). I have up to this point thought of the social consensus is sacrosanct - in future, how can we determine the holders of AGS/PTS or will the social consensus need to evolve to cover the whole of BTS holders as a result of the proposed merger?  How will any new social consensus achieve consensus?
  • It seems that the VOTE DAC has new features that has everyone very excited.   The question here is  - those features not to be included in the BitShares toolkit for Intellectual Property or other reasons?   Or will they be maintained in the BitShares DAC code (which itself is derived from the BitShares Toolkit)?  Would a BitShares code base include significant additions over and above the BitShares Toolkit base.
  • Bytemaster has said that BitShares Toolkit will continue to be the developed and maintained.   I have heard it mentioned that one of the reasons for the proposed merger is to allow BitSharesX to utilize the marvelous work done for the other DACS?  Why cannot that be done at present,  notwithstanding issues of merging, testing & therefore,  managing the fork.   Or is there an issue with code management that is "forcing" the different DACs together?   Or is it simply to enjoy the network effect of combining the functions?
  • There seems to me to be a down side to future user issued assets on BTS block-chain.  In a merged block-chain,  delegates will need to agree to provide a feed for assets,  including new user issued assets if the market peg is to be initially maintained.  This would seem to make the introduction of user issued assets very difficult,  as it would require the co-ordination & contact with 101 delegates to "sell"" them on the new idea.  While a market view would say that this is simply the way that it should be,   in practice it would seem difficult to get this organised - hence driving people with new business ideas back to creating a new DAC.   
  • What role will of BitUSD (& similar assets) play in the future.  I have in this forum  of the potential for 3rd Party DACs to utilize (piggy-back) onto BitUSD etc    rather than trying to maintain their own market &/or peg.   However I guess that is easily done by an appropriately developed interface rather than any explicit additional support (current APIs).


By the way, I have posted this in the General Discussion area as it seems to go to the core of one aspect of the merger proposals.
BTSX: slender