The NEW Bitshares PTS - superDAC slayer!

[alphaBar]

For those who are interested, we're organizing a mailing list: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10540.0

[xeroc]

alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.

  Totally agree. It was a trade-off between provoking a strong debate and provoking strong opposition.

I appreciate your aggressiveness. I myself fail miserably at that point .. My wife always tells me I am too naive .. think she's right

[alphaBar]

alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.

  Totally agree. It was a trade-off between provoking a strong debate and provoking strong opposition.

[starspirit]

alphaBar, I think you mistakenly framed this thread as a challenge to the SuperDAC, and that has resulted in defensive positions against your idea. If we just accept that BTS is a different beast (being like a company) and can be successful in its own right, then the idea of a money competitor as a separate DAC is no longer a threat, but potentially something all BTS holders may ultimately benefit from.

You're attempting to do what every other coin developer has failed at: combining the appreciation of crypto with the stability of fiat. Even Bitcoin has not managed this with a market cap of billions of dollars; apparently it would require much more to create true stability.

BitShares accomplishes this by using one app with two currencies, both of them freely interchangeable. BitUSD is as stable as fiat, yet backed by the appreciating BTSX, and it even provides a return for holding fiat. At any point, with a couple of clicks, you can move any amount into BTSX and back and forth.

This is the best of both worlds. If you think you can do better, go for it. In the experience of every other coin developer, some of whom are among the smartest people working in the fields of technology and economics, you get both the positives and negatives of appreciation + volatility when you try to combine them in the same package. I don't see how your idea works any better.

dp, it may not have been successfully done yet, but it is a challenge that is getting closer to being cracked IMO. But this may be a long experiment for distant success. In the meantime I agree it is more critical for Bitshares and related DACs to have a unit of account that works immediately like BitUSD, but we should recognise that BitUSD is not divorced from the travails of the fiat money world, and nor is it divorced from the collateral risk of BTS.

[Empirical1.1]

Yes there will be a competitor that cannibalises a lot of the Super DAC but has the advantage of working within the framework of a money. I will hedge a little there when I see it, but in the short term it will not compete with BitShares. BitShares will dominate for the next two years at least imo.

Your concept is not dissimilar to my Athena coin concept. For BitShares it needs to move ahead as soon as possible, there is a $100 Billion+ Super DAC up for grabs here plus we have the best developers so we can pioneer not sit back and wait in the wings like a less flexible competitor, working within the framework of a money will have to do.

[donkeypong]

You're attempting to do what every other coin developer has failed at: combining the appreciation of crypto with the stability of fiat. Even Bitcoin has not managed this with a market cap of billions of dollars; apparently it would require much more to create true stability.

BitShares accomplishes this by using one app with two currencies, both of them freely interchangeable. BitUSD is as stable as fiat, yet backed by the appreciating BTSX, and it even provides a return for holding fiat. At any point, with a couple of clicks, you can move any amount into BTSX and back and forth.

This is the best of both worlds. If you think you can do better, go for it. In the experience of every other coin developer, some of whom are among the smartest people working in the fields of technology and economics, you get both the positives and negatives of appreciation + volatility when you try to combine them in the same package. I don't see how your idea works any better.

[alphaBar]

Donkey and Ander - saying that "BitUSD is the currency of the future" is not very ambitious. Here's why you're wrong:

1) You're assuming that in the long run people will continue to prefer Fed-controlled fiat currency over the guaranteed scarcity of crypto.

2) As I said before, collateral requirements will make it such that the value of BTS must be far greater than the value of the combined BitAssets issued on top of it. Many aspects of the superDAC, especially the fact that it will support a "currency" token and not just "company shares", requires that the superDAC itself maintains the currency-like properties I have outlined above - (i) fair distribution, (ii) scarcity (non-inflationary), (iii) efficiency (DPOS), and (iv) security.

3) The reason serious investors (governments, institutions, high net-worth individuals, etc.) look for these properties is that they expect currency to be the lowest risk and most stable unit of account. Building currency on top of a protocol layer that does not meet these requirements (or has weaknesses) does nothing to alleviate such concerns.

Personally I believe a couple/handful of cryptocurrencies will rise to global status and that they will gradually replace fiat currencies. BitAssets will play a huge part as (i) a stop-gap measure to onboard new users while crypto is still young and misunderstood and (ii) as an investment vehicle for traders who wish to hedge into non-crypto positions. The superDAC will have incredible features that may be appealing to a lot of people (including myself), but the new Bitshares PTS would have better distribution, strong scarcity, and would be a far better currency and sharedrop instrument. Different models for different applications.

[donkeypong]

Some of us have been trying for months to get some changes to PTS to make it functional, whether it remained internal or external to BTSX. This merger was the change. BitUSD is the currency of the future. Get used to it.

The big question is, which of the following pictures most closely describes PTS today? You may vote for more than one.







"I used to be a plastic bottle."

[Ander]

I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.

Imo, BTS is not going for the digital currency appliction.

BTS is going for the digital corporation + digital equity application.  (+Vote +DNS +etc).


bitUSD is going for the digital currency application!  An asset created by and backed by BTS.

[amencon]

Interesting concept.  If it got support and commitment from some developers then I'd definitely support the initiative.

I'd like to see lots of variations on the toolkit, hopefully so that as DACs come and go just like normal companies do, the combined knowledge and experience of the businesses before can continue to evolve the toolkit so that each new generation of DACs grow stronger, regardless of which market vertical the DAC is catering to.

[Xeldal]

I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.

Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.

These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.

  To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.

BTS still has what I consider its primary suitable currencies; bitAssets.   bitGold is not subject to whatever inflation BTS may have.  In addition everyone knows what gold is and there exists a long tradition for use as money.  BTS is the platform to bring these bitAssets to the world in a functional package.  The BTS platform can accomplish this without dilution, but the problem is someone else will realize it can be done much better and faster treating the platform as a company and giving it the bootstrap-rocketfuel-infusions it needs to get established and recognized.  Ultimately I do not see BTS/BTSX/BTC or anything like it being used as the worlds primary currency.  In the new world all of those will be options, use whatever you like.  For most, i believe gold will satisfy the desires for stable/unprintable with the added advantage that it already exists in physical form.

Key point is, BTS is the horse your betting on to bring this tech to the world.  Give it the support it needs to get there first.  Forget about it requiring ideal currency characteristics.  We've already got that covered.

[Bitty]

Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?

It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).

As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.

Thoughts:

It's an interesting idea and I don't think anyone would be opposed. The biggest supporter of PTS has parted ways, and it's the perfect opportunity to transfer its momentum by re-launching it. Would be nice to see more discussion regarding the future of PTS.

[Bitty]

To any developers who are watching the current fiasco unfold, I have a suggestion for creating a DAC that I believe has a decent shot at beating the superDAC with minimal effort and expense. The Bitshares superDAC has the following weaknesses:

* The threshold for inflation is too low. By allowing inflation of up to 8% perpetually in the protocol, you end up with a situation where large stakeholders are able to "write their own paycheck" for lack of a better term. The biggest stakeholders in the superDAC will be I3, and for all intents and purposes they will be setting their own pay. It would take an almost impossible amount of stake (if you consider the avg participation rate) to "disagree" with their payrate and to vote them out. Any currency (even Bitcoin) allows for inflation. The difference is that inflation is not baked into the protocol, and would therefore require a far greater "stake" to implement (by modifying the protocol). Bitshares has ignored one of the main principles of crypto community: that scarcity should be (almost) inviolable.
* The second weakness of the superDAC is distribution. AGS distribution has already alienated a huge number of Bitcoin purists who are adamantly against "IPO coins". I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy, but there is a large segment of crypto users who will only invest in coins that have no IPO, no premine, and ONLY PoW distribution. The chaos that is unfolding with the superDAC has amplified the problem, possibly causing irreparable harm in PR and public distrust. I'm not speaking to intentions here. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.

Here is my proposal:

Someone should fork the Bitshares Toolkit and create a new Bitshares PTS that launches on November 5th (the date of snapshot). The new PTS should have nothing but the core Toolkit functionality (DPOS+TITAN). With DPOS technology, no inflation, and pure proof of work distribution, I argue that the new Bitshares PTS has a shot at dethroning the superDAC.

This is an experiment that can be conducted with minimal cost. The new PTS can always benefit from improvements made to the Toolkit, and if PTS wins I am sure Dan and the rest of the devs from I3 will jump on board (since they will have a large stake in PTS as well). If it loses then nothing much is lost.

Brilliant

[CLains]

I think you're reading too much into FUD. NXT climbed highest at the highest levels of community FUD. The reason nobody is using NXT is because right now it is close to useless (somewhat like BitShares), the difference being that BitShares can fund further development and marketing, while NXT is stuck in tragedy of the commons. Ripple had far higher levels of FUD than NXT in the cryptocommunity, but they still reached a much higher market cap than say, Stellar, who open sourced it and practically gave away shares with a viral program.

[James212]

* The last weakness of the superDAC is what I call "abuse of the DAC analogy". Let's face it, the killer app in the crypto-space has always been and will always be one thing: currency. And to be a good store of value, any coin that maintains the sanctity of scarce supply at the protocol layer, will be leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. What Bitshares gains in "marketing funds" they will lose in investor confidence (from the very investors they are "marketing" to). It is true that running a DAC like a business will result in a more agile and adaptive token. But I would argue that we should run our "business" with the aim of positioning ourselves as the best currency and store of value (the killer app). As I mentioned earlier, I believe the crypto-space is searching for a "unit of account" that will inevitably become something of a global reserve upon which everything else is built. The coin that wins this battle will NOT be Bitcoin (primarily due to the pitfalls of PoW) and it will not be the coin with the most advanced features (see Nxt). The coin that becomes the defacto world reserve must be appealing to governments and serious investors and must be perceived as (i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure. Any feature built on top of this coin cannot be done at the expense of these 4 things. The superDAC has failed in distribution/allocation and scarcity.

It seems your premise is BTS is a coin or something like Bitcoin.  I would prescribe more reading to understand the importance of free markets via the block chain and the benefits of the profitable-apps that are being built in to BTS that make it a value creator for its owners and users.  Perhaps the wiki and all of BM's posts.