Author Topic: BitUSD across DACs  (Read 12688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wasthatawolf

A one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. 

Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"
You people realize that you're choosing an arbitrary currency over all others?

Hasn't the idea all along been to onboard new users by introducing them to BitUSD first?  It's hardly arbitrary.

I remember listening to an interview with Brian Page about this exactly.  Also, BitShares forks could just as easily add a one way peg for other BitAssets depending on user demand.

The point is to strengthen the demand for BitAssets that exist on the BitShares chain.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
A one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. 

Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"
You people realize that you're choosing an arbitrary currency over all others?

Offline wasthatawolf

A one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. 

Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...

Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.

No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.
BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.

Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.
Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.

So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.

If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.

Thanks for this perspective.

BitUSD as the brand name of the USD pegged asset collateralized by Bitshares is a great definition. 

If it's a USD pegged asset collateralized by ANY OTHER fork of Bitshares, it is not BitUSD.

The idea of having USD pegged assets on Bitshares forks still makes sense to some degree.  ForkUSD would essentially be a bank account for the DAC and a low volatility unit of account for users of that DAC.  ForkUSD could also be supported by a one way peg allowing a 1:1 trade of BitUSD for ForkUSD but not the other way around.  A one way peg in this direction would also insure liquidity for BitUSD as well as increase liquidity with every new successful independent fork of Bitshares.  The one-way peg would just be another part of the social contract when using the Bitshares Toolkit.

I agree forks can and will have their own branded pegged assets, they are useful and valuable to them.

A one way peg would be great but I guess that would be a function of BitUSD being so popular rather than something we can force on them with a social contract, also because if their pegged asset starts competing with ours for utility outside their DAC, we will fight to maintain our market leader position, whether they honoured a social contract or not imo.


Offline wasthatawolf

ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...

Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.

No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.
BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.

Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.
Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.

So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.

If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.

Thanks for this perspective.

BitUSD as the brand name of the USD pegged asset collateralized by Bitshares is a great definition. 

If it's a USD pegged asset collateralized by ANY OTHER fork of Bitshares, it is not BitUSD.

The idea of having USD pegged assets on Bitshares forks still makes sense to some degree.  ForkUSD would essentially be a bank account for the DAC and a low volatility unit of account for users of that DAC.  ForkUSD could also be supported by a one way peg allowing a 1:1 trade of BitUSD for ForkUSD but not the other way around.  A one way peg in this direction would also insure liquidity for BitUSD as well as increase liquidity with every new successful independent fork of Bitshares.  The one-way peg would just be another part of the social contract when using the Bitshares Toolkit.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 11:15:03 pm by wasthatawolf »

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
You probably are correct at this point. It would be confusing for new users indeed.. ;)

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
anyway...I am not going to argue anymore about this since I am pretty sure that in the near future a centralized corporation will issue some card and will take care of all that so the price of musicusd, bitharesusd, bobusd will be reflected in the fees they charge for the conversion to usd so the name doesn't affect the end result...
For simplicity and not new users get more confused this is the reason I would think bitusd for all is better. On the other side I can see your points that bobusd if called bitusd might hurt us so...

New users would be more confused if CoinoUSD, NuBits and BitUSD were all called BitUSD.

They would be more confused if BitUSD was advertised with 10% interest then they bought BitUSD from somewhere else, like BitShares Music but that was different imo.
 

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
anyway...I am not going to argue anymore about this since I am pretty sure that in the near future a centralized corporation will issue some card and will take care of all that so the price of musicusd, bitharesusd, bobusd will be reflected in the fees they charge for the conversion to usd so the name doesn't affect the end result...
For simplicity and not new users get more confused this is the reason I would think bitusd for all is better. On the other side I can see your points that bobusd if called bitusd might hurt us so...

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...

Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.

No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.
BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.

Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.
Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.

So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.

If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.

Eg. Imagine I call my thing BitUSD but my BitUSD is at a range of $0.60. A store won't want to sell me a $10 product for 10 of those BitUSD. It doesn't want to figure out which one it is. Just like stores just accept Bitcoin not the 500 other coins. They don't want the job of figuring out how they're all different. Stores will accept the most popular stable liquid one. That one will be BitUSD anyone else with BitShares in the name or not trying to make a BitAsset popular is a competitor of my BTSX, soon to be BTS shares.

I want it to be 'BitUSD accepted here.'
As in BitUSD is the brand name of BTS. NXT can have a dollar asset like CoinoUSD, NuShares has NuBits. BTSX has BitUSD. BitShares Music of they go it alone has something else.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:38:07 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...

Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I disagree. IF Music decides to run independently they should both call bitusd. They both are bitusd pegged to the usd. One by puting Notes as collateral the other putting BTS as collateral. Calling them bitsharesusd and musicusd will further confuse usual people who will think that the whole bitassets are a joke or a game..They are not!They are bitusds backed by different collateral!

I agree. Keep it simple and before you know it, we'll be able to move between one DAC and the other.

No only one has 'BitUSD' it's a brand name like Bitcoin. NXT needs NXTUSD, BitShares Music has MusicUSD not 'BitUSD'.

They are different. They are not fungible.

We want the world's merchants to say 'BitUSD accepted here'. MusicUSD will be different. BobUSD will not be accepted if Bob calls it BitUSD because it's a different product. It might have less collateral, less yield, less liquidity, a weaker peg, the shares backing it might be close to worthless or set up as a scam etc. etc.
Whether Bobby wants to call it BobUSD or BobBitUSD there will be only one 'BitUSD'. Just like someone can call there coin Bitcoin but it won't be fungible with Bitcoin imo.


« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 10:00:21 pm by Empirical1.1 »

Offline teenagecheese

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Quote
Generally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it.  With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).

Until one day you realize that you cannot place or withdraw money from Gox. And another day you realize that if you had a bank account in Cyprus you wouldn't either. And another day maybe you realize that you can't withdraw money from bitstamp either. And another day guess what...You may not be able to withdraw usd from your precious banks in America... But you will always be able to exchange your bitshares bitusd to your music bitusd even if it is not 1:1 always...And you know why? because No One can shut down DACS and your bitusds will always be backed by collateral.Not like the current banking system.

People, especially in the US,  take for granted that their Government IOU usd will always be honored. I hope you don't get caught by nasty  surprises in the future which imho will be inevitable unless we change our perspective of seeing things. Personally I don't trust my Government to always honor their EUR IOU and that is the reason I am here, just to protect my self from the inevitable.

I feel like this discussion keeps drifting away from the point I've been trying to make.

If we want this ecosystem to expand and encompass the casual user, the marketing effort needs to be clear and focused.  By marketing all USD asset pegs generically as BitUSD (regardless of the chain on which they exist), it appears as though it is an attempt to mask the fact that these are in fact different assets with free floating exchange rates to the dollar (albeit with the same peg).

This will confuse people and foster distrust.  They must be called what they are:  BitsharesMusicUSD and BitsharesUSD.

I'm still with wasthatawolf on this. Keep arguing your point, you are right. I will say I do have a feeling those involved in making this decision are discussing this issue and just haven't posted yet because they haven't decided for sure. Hopefully.

I will also add and restate my previous point that the system should be set up so that peertracks (or any other associated DAC) does not have an exchange at all. Either they should be on the bitshares blockchain, or be a pegged sidechain to it, or anything to avoid this weird situation where a music service company has to establish a peg to a bitUSD to make their system work.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I disagree. IF Music decides to run independently they should both call bitusd. They both are bitusd pegged to the usd. One by puting Notes as collateral the other putting BTS as collateral. Calling them bitsharesusd and musicusd will further confuse usual people who will think that the whole bitassets are a joke or a game..They are not!They are bitusds backed by different collateral!

I agree. Keep it simple and before you know it, we'll be able to move between one DAC and the other.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
I disagree. IF Music decides to run independently they should both call bitusd. They both are bitusd pegged to the usd. One by puting Notes as collateral the other putting BTS as collateral. Calling them bitsharesusd and musicusd will further confuse usual people who will think that the whole bitassets are a joke or a game..They are not!They are bitusds backed by different collateral! 

Offline wasthatawolf

Quote
Generally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it.  With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).

Until one day you realize that you cannot place or withdraw money from Gox. And another day you realize that if you had a bank account in Cyprus you wouldn't either. And another day maybe you realize that you can't withdraw money from bitstamp either. And another day guess what...You may not be able to withdraw usd from your precious banks in America... But you will always be able to exchange your bitshares bitusd to your music bitusd even if it is not 1:1 always...And you know why? because No One can shut down DACS and your bitusds will always be backed by collateral.Not like the current banking system.

People, especially in the US,  take for granted that their Government IOU usd will always be honored. I hope you don't get caught by nasty  surprises in the future which imho will be inevitable unless we change our perspective of seeing things. Personally I don't trust my Government to always honor their EUR IOU and that is the reason I am here, just to protect my self from the inevitable.

I feel like this discussion keeps drifting away from the point I've been trying to make.

If we want this ecosystem to expand and encompass the casual user, the marketing effort needs to be clear and focused.  By marketing all USD asset pegs generically as BitUSD (regardless of the chain on which they exist), it appears as though it is an attempt to mask the fact that these are in fact different assets with free floating exchange rates to the dollar (albeit with the same peg).

This will confuse people and foster distrust.  They must be called what they are:  BitsharesMusicUSD and BitsharesUSD.