Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?

[gamey]

The way to see your own bias is if you use biased words in your description: For instance, "bribe." A bribe is not only paying someone to do something you want, but specifically doing so in an illegal way.

This proposal is suggesting we pay people more for holding bitUSD. Where does the money come from? US. We the investors are paying bitUSD users to hold money in our bank. Why are we doing this? To attract users to our system. Simple.

There is no doubt I have a bias.  It isn't like I am claiming otherwise.  It is like you usng the word "simple".  That shows your bias.  Seriously CLains, you're too smart for these types of observations.

No doubt I dislike Rune. I get I've offended others.  I'm sorry to those people but this love everyone attitude will not protect the community and just set people up for the next scam of some sort.  I don't know Rune.  I know nothing at all about him personally.  I just get that vibe and my Spidey sense is creepy accurate. 

Actually look up the word bribe, it has little to do with something being illegal.  I used the word perfectly fine.  This is another example of your bias if we want to make such observations.

[jae208]

You know what? I actually think that the FED doesn't seem that evil after all. Dilution can be a powerful tool when used correctly. As we see here dilution of the money supply is going to be used to further development among other things. A while ago I was reading how the dilution of the money supply and low interest rates that have been going on since Obama took office prevented another great depression from happening.  Apparently if the money supply was diluted in the 1930's, which you couldn't as money used to be gold, the Great depression would have never happened. Again during the depression goods and services got cheaper and so it made more sense to just hold on to your gold rather than spend it and that brought the whole economy to a halt.

I agree with C. If we can just set emotion aside and have intelligent discourse we will be able to come up with great ideas and solutions. Why wouldn't we want to attract new users? We need new users more so than we need investors or developers. Without users to use the platform there is not DAC, there is no ROI, and no job for developers. Users of the plat form are a top priority.

[CLains]

It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.

Words playing on connotation found so far:

crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...

This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.

 

 

There has been plenty of reasonable talk in here.  It is very ponzi like.  This has been discussed in several posts.

For my own sake, I posted that early on in page 2 of this thread after only 10 people had posted. I agree discussion became much more lucid and reasonable after that point..

The way to see your own bias is if you use biased words in your description: For instance, "bribe." A bribe is not only paying someone to do something you want, but specifically doing so in an illegal way.

This proposal is suggesting we pay people more for holding bitUSD. Where does the money come from? US. We the investors are paying bitUSD users to hold money in our bank. Why are we doing this? To attract users to our system. Simple.

Could we spend the money better in some other way? Perhaps. For instance, referral program for bitUSD is also possible, with 10% back on deposits. Or paying Delegates, etc.

How would we market the fact that we are paying bitUSD users to hold? Call it a promotional campaign, a way of compensating pioneering bitUSD users for systemic risk, etc.

Promotional campaigns (even for banks) can give people exceptionally good deals. People know that companies periodically spend more than they earn to promote themselves and keep growing their user base, especially early on.

Do you all see the referral program ideas as misguided in the same way, or is this something specific to setting a specific return that people might expect to be upheld indefinitely?

[kisa]

OK perhaps those of us should keep quiet for a while who don't want to get involved into crypto politics like myself...

[gamey]

The question remains what incentives to offer. And the secret sauce might help also so cheer up folks - I don't see fundamental differences here, rather the emotional argument about how to frame the incentives. Let's cool down, stop being personal and get back to constructive tone and work.

It isn't about how we frame or market it, it is about competitors realizing what we are doing and just blowing it up all over the place.  There isn't anything you can do to hide it, so there is no solution.  All we can argue is how much of an effect opposing projects screaming we're doing some ponzi like crap will have.  Look what we decided about nubits.  I'm not sure this is much different. 

It also speaks to the what BTS is capable of doing.  If we'll dilute just to pay out guaranteed interest..  then where do we stop and why ?   That isn't just my question to the community, these are questions you will see on reddit/threads from here on out. 

[kisa]

Okay let's not advertise certain yield if this increases wrong perception. Let's pay out transaction fees and state what has been achieved in the past for bitAsset holders. In fact what some of us are concerned about is that at initial stage where BTS is not yet established reputation/high market cap there should be enough incentives to hold bitAssets longs.

There are different ideas on this forum how to motivate people via marketing. Some are targeting to get liberty idealists, decentralization activists  and anti-bank population on board, others focus their attempts at utilitarian users a.s.o. Almost any business with network effects has certain ponzi characteristics (FB, Microsoft, Google?) and we are prepared to defend against such wrongful accusations or just ignore them.

BTS business model ist not going to collapse at later stage, depending on ever new money inflows, this is nonsense. But BTS needs CRITICAL MASS to take off, as almost any mass business. However incentives can be used to achieve the critical mass and paid out of marketing or other company funds. So I hope most of us can agree on that.

The question remains what incentives to offer. And the secret sauce might help also so cheer up folks - I don't see fundamental differences here, rather the emotional argument about how to frame the incentives. Let's cool down, stop being personal and get back to constructive tone and work.

[gamey]

It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.

Words playing on connotation found so far:

crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...

This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.

 

 

There has been plenty of reasonable talk in here.  It is very ponzi like.  This has been discussed in several posts.

The problems people have here against the proposal are a reflection of what people outside our community will think.  Now if these great new onramps that skip over crypto people work just fine - then OK !  It won't matter ! 

However, if you want crypto people investing then the whole thing sounds sketchy to me and thus will sound far far more sketchy to other crypto-tribes who will chant it like a mantra.

Otherwise the idea should be put far on the backshelf until we have things like a working and universal bitUSD wallet etc. 

First we were inflating to help continue development.  Then we've went over to funding marketing.  Now we're considering inflating to pay bribes for people to buy-in.  IMO it is functionally the same as a bribe, so call it FUD if you want, but this is the same thing you'll hear elsewhere and how would you defend against such things?

[kisa]

It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.

Words playing on connotation found so far:

crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...

This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.

 

 

[jae208]

On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.

His focus was narrow and deep with investors though wasn't it? Not really users, or maybe I'm missing something.
Without users it doesn't matter if you have great developers or tons of investors.

[Riverhead]

If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.

This literally made me laugh out loud. Well done.

Only periodically though.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.

#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions 

Guess I'm the one that was missing something

LOL - I wish somebody would come up with a way to signify "sarcasm" when writing a post...... it would just be so damn useful

[Troglodactyl]

On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.

[jae208]

On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

[jae208]

It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.

Words playing on connotation found so far:

crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...

This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.

 

[Riverhead]

Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.

#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions 

Guess I'm the one that was missing something