BitUSD across DACs

[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?