Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.
Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.
So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares.
As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.
I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority.
If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public? Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.
These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.
Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.
I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.