BitUSD across DACs

[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.

[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?

[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"

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[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.

[mf-tzo]

You probably are correct at this point. It would be confusing for new users indeed..

[Empirical1.1]

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.
 

[mf-tzo]

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...

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[mf-tzo]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[teenagecheese]

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.

[donkeypong]

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.

[mf-tzo]

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! 

[wasthatawolf]

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.

[mf-tzo]

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. 

[wasthatawolf]

bitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!

See what I did?

Not sure how to fix this ..
not even sure if a fix is required

Apples to oranges.

BitsharesX is marketed as a decentralized bank.

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). 

[wasthatawolf]

bitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!

See what I did?

Not sure how to fix this ..
not even sure if a fix is required

Apples to oranges.

[xeroc]

bitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!

See what I did?

Not sure how to fix this ..
not even sure if a fix is required

[wasthatawolf]

PeerTracks is going to be accepting cash through credit card purchases they will have an onramp straight from fiat. Their bitusd will be backed by notes on one side and fiat on the otherside. Since they are not providing yield/interest on their bitusd, the transaction fees that don't go to delegates can go to a reserve. If we are the big superDAC, then they are now lean focus DAC. It will be interesting to see how each performs.

If we grow as fast or faster than them then maybe we can merge or just buy them out before someone else does.

Peertracks BitUSD != Bitshares BitUSD

Ask anyone not following these forums closely if they are aware of this distinction.  My bet is a majority are not.

This is the core issue.

[Pheonike]

PeerTracks is going to be accepting cash through credit card purchases they will have an onramp straight from fiat. Their bitusd will be backed by notes on one side and fiat on the otherside. Since they are not providing yield/interest on their bitusd, the transaction fees that don't go to delegates can go to a reserve. If we are the big superDAC, then they are now lean focus DAC. It will be interesting to see how each performs.

If we grow as fast or faster than them then maybe we can merge or just buy them out before someone else does.

[wasthatawolf]

I guess I don't see the problem. They'll at least be plugged into one another for cross-chain trading. The values may correct any small discrepancies at that point. Until then, what's the harm in using the same currency? It is, after all, pegged to the dollar.

The problem is that by using the same name it isn't clear that they're different.  Just because they have the same peg, doesn't change the fact that they will each have their own market rate against the dollar.  The spread between the two BitUSDs will be looked at as a floating fee to the average user and will at best confuse them and at worst discourage them from using the platform.

[donkeypong]

I guess I don't see the problem. They'll at least be plugged into one another for cross-chain trading. The values may correct any small discrepancies at that point. Until then, what's the harm in using the same currency? It is, after all, pegged to the dollar.

[wasthatawolf]

My point was that inclusion of the Music DAC is being considered. Bytemaster and Cob have both said this in the last couple of days. I felt it was important to correct your statement that "Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC". Technically, this is true, since PeerTracks is the external retail site, but anyone reading this forum needs to know that the decision on the Music DAC (back end) has not been made, as far as I am aware. So it would be inaccurate to say that it is not being included.

This is just semantics.  Regardless of what might happen in the future, we need to consider the here and now.  Current plans indicate (per Xeroc's most recent post) that Peertracks will plug into BitShares Music and not the BitShares SuperDAC.

The Peertracks guys discuss BitUSD in interviews NOW (at least in the most recent Bitcoins and Gravy interview which is what led me to start this thread).

The Peertracks website discusses BitUSD NOW.

There needs to be a clear distinction NOW between BitUSD that is used within the BitShares Music DAC and BitUSD used within the BitShares SuperDAC.  It should be abundantly clear to all parties involved that BitUSD is not fungible between chains. 

I'm extremely surprised that more people don't see a huge issue with how BitUSD is currently being marketed as a single asset.

[xeroc]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10258.msg134826#msg134826

As of now the Music DAC is taking a wait and see approach. We have to develop the front end as well to bring value and use to the underlying asset. We have plenty of time to make a decision as to what we plug in to. BitShares Music or BitShares mega flagship.

We still have another 40 days of pre-sale at least + bytemaster's announcement to look forward to.
Then we have to consult the forums (:

A month is a long time in the BitShares world!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10258.msg135922#msg135922

Eddie and I's responsibility is to the Music Project and the Note holders.
Whatever we end up doing has to be either neutral or beneficial to whoever spent funds on aquiring Notes.
So we are not changing course.
If anything happens down the line the BTS merger appears super beneficial, then of course we will do what's best for your guys and ourselves.

Point is. Right now, Plan A stays. BitShares Music is it's own DAC.

[donkeypong]

The biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD).  Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD.  You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.

This is inaccurate. I know there's been a lot going on this week, but search some other threads; this has been mentioned several times. The Music DAC is considering merging its DAC side into the BitShares SuperDAC. That decision has not yet been made. Cross-chain trading will be enabled at some point. So this is not an issue.

Well now I'm confused. 

From what I've read and the responses I've seen on this thread, the inclusion of the Music DAC is a "down the road, maybe we'll do this" kind of thing.  If you're going to be making a big marketing push for the Bitshares SuperDAC in the near future, then this needs to be decided first. 

The last thing we need is to confuse a market that is already confused by DACs in general.

My point was that inclusion of the Music DAC is being considered. Bytemaster and Cob have both said this in the last couple of days. I felt it was important to correct your statement that "Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC". Technically, this is true, since PeerTracks is the external retail site, but anyone reading this forum needs to know that the decision on the Music DAC (back end) has not been made, as far as I am aware. So it would be inaccurate to say that it is not being included.

[wasthatawolf]

The biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD).  Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD.  You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.

This is inaccurate. I know there's been a lot going on this week, but search some other threads; this has been mentioned several times. The Music DAC is considering merging its DAC side into the BitShares SuperDAC. That decision has not yet been made. Cross-chain trading will be enabled at some point. So this is not an issue.

Well now I'm confused. 

From what I've read and the responses I've seen on this thread, the inclusion of the Music DAC is a "down the road, maybe we'll do this" kind of thing.  If you're going to be making a big marketing push for the Bitshares SuperDAC in the near future, then this needs to be decided first. 

The last thing we need is to confuse a market that is already confused by DACs in general.

[donkeypong]

The biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD).  Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD.  You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.

This is inaccurate. I know there's been a lot going on this week, but search some other threads; this has been mentioned several times. The Music DAC is considering merging its DAC side into the BitShares SuperDAC. That decision has not yet been made. Cross-chain trading will be enabled at some point. So this is not an issue.

[teenagecheese]

From the Peertracks FAQ...

What is a BitUSD?

This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.

No mention at all that this is not compatible with BitUSD on BitsharesX.

wasthatawolf, I am totally with you on all your comments. I hope the dev. team is aware of this and working on it. If they do not see the problem with this than I am worried.

[wasthatawolf]

From the Peertracks FAQ...

What is a BitUSD?

This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.

No mention at all that this is not compatible with BitUSD on BitsharesX.

[wasthatawolf]

And now you understand why I3 wants to grow in ONE big DAC first .. network effect works best with a super dac

once the individual apps/dacs in the superDAC mature and can stand on their own (liquid markets, etc. bla bla) .. then the community might reconsider to "spin-off" an application/dac ..

I understand the reasoning for the SuperDAC but that doesn't change the current branding of BitUSD. 

The biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD).  Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD.  You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.

[xeroc]

And now you understand why I3 wants to grow in ONE big DAC first .. network effect works best with a super dac

once the individual apps/dacs in the superDAC mature and can stand on their own (liquid markets, etc. bla bla) .. then the community might reconsider to "spin-off" an application/dac ..

[wasthatawolf]

you cannot move bitUSD from one DAC INTO another DAC ... you can trade 1:1 between DACs ..

the amount of bitUSD in BTSX will always be completely backed by BTSX .. same holds for any other chain ..

you can think of a second market maker .. that trades bitUSD back an forth between chains .. while achieving a few percent profit ... inter DAC bitUSD trades might not be 1:1 .. because they require additional complexity/work ..

have you ever transfered money internationally?! same thing!

But you can't trade 1:1 between DACs, and there is potential for a significant spread.  If BitsharesX becomes wildly successful and Peertracks doesn't gain traction, then the large difference in volume on the internal exchanges of each chain could produce spreads in excess of 10%. 

So imagine you are a new user of both Bitshares and Peertracks and this difference has not been clearly expressed or stated.  Lets also assume there are easy to use gateways into each chain via credit card as well as a "transfer BitUSD" feature built into each application that executes BitUSD trades between chains for you on the backend at the current market rate. 

You "deposit" $100 from your credit card into Peertracks, and in return you receive 100 BitUSD (but for all intents and purposes this is PeertracksUSD).  You buy some music then decide that you want to "transfer" the remaining BitUSD over to your Bitshares account.  After completing the "transfer" you notice that you were charged a "fee" (which is really just the spread between the PeertracksUSD and BitsharesUSD).  Even if the spread is 5%, you've just significantly soured the relationship with and completely confused the user. 

[joele]

Should have distinguish unit name in the transfer field like
bts.bitUSD
music.bitUSD

Because they have different user account records

[mf-tzo]

Quote
There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....

the list is endless...

Your analogy does not work.  The items listed above all have the same backing (the u.s. Gov/central bnk) and thus the same robustness.   The different bitUSD's (BTS/Peershares) have different backing (BTS or notes) so this is a totally different thing and should not be promoted under the same name.

Sure...All usd are the same since they are backed by the US / Gov. Go tell that to MtGox clients that lost their usds.. Go tell that to Cypriots when their deposits were seized...

All fiat currencies are backed by Governments are exposed to country and banking risks. They are IOUs anyway...

Same IOUs will be the different bitusds. BTS usd you could trade, vote, buy domain names. Music bitusd will let you trade Music, Play usd will let you play games. In the future there will be DAC farms that will let you buy food for bitusd, Travel DACs etc etc..

Once you guys realize that it shouldn't even matter if bitusd can be exchanged for real usd. BTS and all the DACs will skyrocket because there will just be no demand for the real usd. The services provided will be the ones needed and we will build a new decentralised economy.

[xeroc]

you cannot move bitUSD from one DAC INTO another DAC ... you can trade 1:1 between DACs ..

the amount of bitUSD in BTSX will always be completely backed by BTSX .. same holds for any other chain ..

you can think of a second market maker .. that trades bitUSD back an forth between chains .. while achieving a few percent profit ... inter DAC bitUSD trades might not be 1:1 .. because they require additional complexity/work ..

have you ever transfered money internationally?! same thing!

[James212]

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....

the list is endless...

Your analogy does not work.  The items listed above all have the same backing (the u.s. Gov/central bnk) and thus the same robustness.   The different bitUSD's (BTS/Peershares) have different backing (BTS or notes) so this is a totally different thing and should not be promoted under the same name.

[Pheonike]

The best chain transfer is DAC-USD to fiat. If both bitUSD and other-USD can go between fiat then that will leverage out any differences.

[teenagecheese]

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....

the list is endless...

The only way the different USD listed above are equivalent to BitUSD is if you can move BitUSD between chains.

Yea. The USD's you listed suck anyway. That is one of the points of this crypto revolution, that banks are doing everything too slow and with too much expense, and you are arguing that it's o.k. because we are going to be just like them. OH MY GOSH!

Even if you take the system with your bank USD's as good, the system I'm arguing to prevent would be even worse.

[wasthatawolf]

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....

the list is endless...

The only way the different USD listed above are equivalent to BitUSD is if you can move BitUSD between chains.

[mf-tzo]

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....

the list is endless...

[wasthatawolf]

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

Exactly, and BitUSD should not be marketed as a single, fungible asset.

[teenagecheese]

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.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.

Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.

Does no one else agree with me?

I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.

I think this is more of a marketing/messaging problem.  If the sole purpose of BitUSD is to eliminate the volatility associated with using the native token of a DAC, then I don't see a big issue with each DAC having it's own internal exchange to allow for BitUSD.  But it should be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that BitUSD on Peernotes is not the same as BitUSD on BitsharesX (or the new Bitshares) which is not that same as the BitUSD in any future DAC.

There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD

[matt608]

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

We can't  buy all the altDAC out there.

U sure?    It might be a good move to buy out promising altDACs even if they are in seemingly different industries if it can be done cheaply.  It's acquiring another small team of people to sell bitassets.  It may even be much cheaper to acquire people though altdac buy outs while they are still young, but old enough to have proven they are highly competent.  Who knows maybe altDACS will end up offering them selves up extremely cheap to be acquired just to get the benefits of being in the superDAC. 

If stakeholders believe a DAC is likely to grow, why not buy it?  I'm sure at some stage there will be a vote on whether to aquire Peertracks or not.  Stakeholders just vote to increase BTS, move them onto the same chain, and away we go, with another new branch growing in a new direction.  Of course altDAC + team need to first prove themselves, I wouldn't vote any old junk onto the main chain, just the best looking stuff (I wouldn't yet vote in favour of Peertracks joining).

[teenagecheese]

I think from reading and writing about all of this I now see clearly what needs to happen.

1. Either all entities in the same crypto ecosystem need to be on the same blockchian (maybe this can and will work in the beginning as we are attempting to do with this merger, but it seems like there is a limit to how big and useful only one blockchain can be)

2. Someone needs to create a standard (a protocol) so all blockchains can communicate and seamlessly trade with each other. This is what I think should happen. It's kind of like what had to happen to develop the internet. I don't know the exact history, but I bet that would be a great example to help see what works and what doesn't.

Edit: Maybe start with step 1 and work on step 2 as you go. Maybe that's already the plan. Bytemaster?

[wasthatawolf]

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.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.

Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.

Does no one else agree with me?

I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.

I think this is more of a marketing/messaging problem.  If the sole purpose of BitUSD is to eliminate the volatility associated with using the native token of a DAC, then I don't see a big issue with each DAC having it's own internal exchange to allow for BitUSD.  But it should be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that BitUSD on Peernotes is not the same as BitUSD on BitsharesX (or the new Bitshares) which is not that same as the BitUSD in any future DAC.

[amencon]

Not at the moment. Since they are in the middle of their pre-sale it doesn't make sense for them to make any decisions now. Ultimately it would make sense to bring bitshares music into bts that way they can completely focus on making the PeerTracks front end site the best it can be.

I think now is when they need to be making these decisions.  We all now have at least a rough idea of what BTS will look like and the benefits it will offer as well as it's drawbacks.

Not making a decision one way or another creates uncertainty and that's something that investors don't like.  Regardless of what decision they make I think they will see a more success pre-sale versus leaving the decision until after it's all over.

Edit: When I say the need to make the decision now I mean days rather than months down the road, not necessarily this second.

[xeroc]

I can see your concerns .. and can just present my point of view ..
I have no real answer nor a solution ..

Disclaimer: .. also no degree in economics ..

[teenagecheese]

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.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.

Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.

Does no one else agree with me?

I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.

[wasthatawolf]

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

We had plenty of discussions like these ... the only difference IMHO .. is liquidity and thus spread .. ... and maybe yield ..
besides that .. 1bitUSD = 1USD .. no matter the collateral

They aren't fungible and shouldn't be called the same thing.  It would be a lot clearer if the assets were called PeernotesUSD and BitsharesUSD.  Calling both assets BitUSD will only confuse potential users. 

[donkeypong]

The think is the SuperDAC only solves the problem temporarily. Sooner or later we will face this problem again. We can't  buy all the altDAC out there. Unless some Bytemaster magic happens you'll have different bitUSD anyway. But this is not important what is important it is network effect that super DAC will get . This is what this merger is all about one team, push it to the sky and once you reach escape velocity it does not matter the altDAC. Music could very well coexist with Bitshare. In fact I don't believe the theory that Vote will have been competed with BithshareX for bitUSD either, two completely different business model . But for sure it will have taken dev  resources away witch is far more dangerous at the moment.

I think it's very possible that other DACs could be launched and they won't have to compete with elements of BitShares DAC. Just because someone is using the code does not necessarily mean they will be using all its features. Most likely, they'll just use the ones they need for whatever purpose. There could be more mergers in the future or there could be spinoffs; it's hard to predict. The crypto environment is evolving at such a rapid pace that it's hard to imagine what things will look like in a few months, much less years!

[oco101]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

The think is the SuperDAC only solves the problem temporarily. Sooner or later we will face this problem again. We can't  buy all the altDAC out there. Unless some Bytemaster magic happens you'll have different bitUSD anyway. But this is not important what is important it is network effect that super DAC will get . This is what this merger is all about one team, push it to the sky and once you reach escape velocity it does not matter the altDAC. Music could very well coexist with Bitshare. In fact I don't believe the theory that Vote will have been competed with BithshareX for bitUSD either, two completely different business model . But for sure it will have taken dev  resources away witch is far more dangerous at the moment.

[xeroc]

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

We had plenty of discussions like these ... the only difference IMHO .. is liquidity and thus spread .. ... and maybe yield ..
besides that .. 1bitUSD = 1USD .. no matter the collateral

[wasthatawolf]

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.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

[xeroc]

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.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

[matt608]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

[xeroc]

I recently wrote an ELI5 post about how cross chain trading would work (already implemented on the blockchain)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10132.msg132196#msg132196

However, BM .. as usual ... has some way bigger plans already

[teenagecheese]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

[wasthatawolf]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

[Stan]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

[donkeypong]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

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.

[matt608]

As far as I know peertracks is remaining independent so the bitUSD will be different bitUSD than BTS bitUSD, but they will be exchangeable via atomic cross chain trading.  It's possible BTS will buy out peertracks eventually and end up on the same chain with the same bitUSD, but for now they are independent.

So yes your two bullet points are correct.

[wasthatawolf]

I was listening to the Bitcoins and Gravy interview with the guys from Peertracks and they mentioned that BitUSD will be utilized as the main form of payment on Peertracks.  I want to make sure I understand this correctly...

• BitUSD exists on the BitsharesX block chain collateralized by BTSX.
• BitUSD exists on the Peertracks block chain collateralized by NOTES?

If the above is accurate, can BitUSD move between the BTSX and the NOTES chains?

That's the idea, but keep in mind that this is all subject to change. They just merged several other DACs to fix this particular issue, so don't be surprised if we see a BTS/MUSIC merger down the road at some point.

I haven't been on the forum for a few weeks and I'm just now reading about this merger.  Can you give me the TL;DR?  Is everything going to be running off of one block chain?

[Pheonike]

Not at the moment. Since they are in the middle of their pre-sale it doesn't make sense for them to make any decisions now. Ultimately it would make sense to bring bitshares music into bts that way they can completely focus on making the PeerTracks front end site the best it can be.

[biophil]

I was listening to the Bitcoins and Gravy interview with the guys from Peertracks and they mentioned that BitUSD will be utilized as the main form of payment on Peertracks.  I want to make sure I understand this correctly...

• BitUSD exists on the BitsharesX block chain collateralized by BTSX.
• BitUSD exists on the Peertracks block chain collateralized by NOTES?

If the above is accurate, can BitUSD move between the BTSX and the NOTES chains?

That's the idea, but keep in mind that this is all subject to change. They just merged several other DACs to fix this particular issue, so don't be surprised if we see a BTS/MUSIC merger down the road at some point.

[wasthatawolf]

I was listening to the Bitcoins and Gravy interview with the guys from Peertracks and they mentioned that BitUSD will be utilized as the main form of payment on Peertracks.  I want to make sure I understand this correctly...

• BitUSD exists on the BitsharesX block chain collateralized by BTSX.
• BitUSD exists on the Peertracks block chain collateralized by NOTES?

If the above is accurate, can BitUSD move between the BTSX and the NOTES chains?