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

[gamey]

I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.

I already went through great lengths to explain what I meant with luck, and later fully went back on it and admitted I was wrong. But thanks for bringing that up and using it against me. I didn't mean "you didn't understand" offensively at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was certain you were expecting the subsidy to be extremely expensive for the company, rather than safely below whatever rate we can reasonably suspect - that is what I meant, nothing else. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it not as a subsidy per se, but a guarantee of a subsidy in the event of temporary volatility. Again, I apologise if my lack of ability to communicate clearly made me inadvertently offend you.

What do you mean I'm being manipulative to you? It's like you have determined that I have bad intentions when I'm just trying to have a free discussion on an idea I have for something that I'm sure will be good for the company as a whole. I don't know who you are, but I'm sure you are doing the exact same thing right now in this very discussion, you are simply arguing for what you think is best for the company.

I will stop posting in this thread now, and give up. But I currently don't think there has been a fair discussion about this where stakeholders have actually been able to let their support known with their actual stake. We need a better process for this than simply using the forum, because it is totally impossible to figure out stake support based on forum posts.

Woah,  woah, woah, you didn't "offend" me until you start trying to play victim.  I just chose to explain to you what you don't understand, like you tried to explain to me what I don't understand.

The fact is, the subsidy will give people something to scream about from here on out.  It very much resembles a ponzi scheme.  People will say that and they will be correct. It is so novel and crazy though that we can't quite call it a ponzi scheme.

I get that the $s are relatively small, but you just keep piling on stuff we should inflate the money supply for.  Your ideas are a perfect example on what happens when you start inflating a money supply.

I'd rather just find a wallet that deals in only bitUSD and is fundamentally more simple.  There are tons of things that need to be done first.  (bitcoind api? HELLLLLLO)  Then perhaps, when that stuff is done and we need to try and entice people in then we can subsidize some guaranteed interest rate. 

Not the sort of stuff you want to come up when you google bitUSD and start reading pages when deciding whether to invest.  You are right through, people scream as it is, it is just this will give them some very strong ammunition.  "They guarantee the % of their assets by inflating their money supply"...  bah

And yes I think you are a manipulator.  You just further justified my view when you attacked me, then when attacked back in same regard you play victim.  You're right though, this talk isn't productive.  I just want people to open their eyes and look at what people's words lead to, whether I am right or wrong.

[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 

[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.

[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?

[Rune]

I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.

I already went through great lengths to explain what I meant with luck, and later fully went back on it and admitted I was wrong. But thanks for bringing that up and using it against me. I didn't mean "you didn't understand" offensively at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was certain you were expecting the subsidy to be extremely expensive for the company, rather than safely below whatever rate we can reasonably suspect - that is what I meant, nothing else. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it not as a subsidy per se, but a guarantee of a subsidy in the event of temporary volatility. Again, I apologise if my lack of ability to communicate clearly made me inadvertently offend you.

What do you mean I'm being manipulative to you? It's like you have determined that I have bad intentions when I'm just trying to have a free discussion on an idea I have for something that I'm sure will be good for the company as a whole. I don't know who you are, but I'm sure you are doing the exact same thing right now in this very discussion, you are simply arguing for what you think is best for the company.

I will stop posting in this thread now, and give up. But I currently don't think there has been a fair discussion about this where stakeholders have actually been able to let their support known with their actual stake. We need a better process for this than simply using the forum, because it is totally impossible to figure out stake support based on forum posts.

[Riverhead]

The whole premise of the yield is profit sharing. Splitting up the money that traditionally goes to bonuses, rent, taxes, etc. If we just pay it all out all the time there is no need for a reserve and we can publish the historic yield and let people make their own decisions.

However, I suspect a bond could be issued as a smart contract that had a set return over time.

Anyway, as has been said many times in this thread if we are withholding yield of existing investors to pay a guaranteed rate of return to all investors, including new investors, than that is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. Sure we can shut it off when the money runs dry but then it's not guaranteed.

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here as I'm probably saying what everyone else has been saying (I didn't read all 8 pages).

I say no. It's a can of worms we don't need to open.

[gamey]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

All I can say is, I disagree with the way you think the market will receive this. Those who are smart enough to understand the system and understand why it is profitable for us to give the guarantee, will understand. Those who are not smart enough to understand, and who simply see our marketing material will probably be positively swayed. We will be accused of being a ponzi scheme by all the usual outlets no matter what we do anyway, this would not make a significant difference in that regard. Also I don't understand why you feel the need to deride me in what should be an intelligent discussion.

I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.

[Rune]

1. What other arguments do you need more than better Ponzi that regular Ronzi!
2.What was proven wrong? Where?

We guarantee 5%, although we do not make 5%! -part one - sells pitch.
This promise is good till you buy in! - terminable at will at any point!

It is sustainable because it can be terminated at any time. It is not likely to be terminated in short or medium run because it will be set at a rate where we expect interest will naturally hit, and thus will not be very expensive, but still provide a massive marketing advantage. The moment we mature and growth potential calms down, we can remove it. Before then we will remove it at any sight it is being gamed in some way, or that our predictions for the interest rate were wrong.

[tonyk]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!

It's kinda unnerving how you just repeat the same FUD words even though they have already been proven wrong (it can be terminated if unprofitable, thus is not ponzi or unsustainable). Do you not have any other arguments?

1. What other arguments do you need more than better Ponzi that regular Ronzi!
2.What was proven wrong? Where?

We guarantee 5%, although we do not make 5%! -part one - sells pitch.
This promise is good till you buy in! - terminable at will at any point!

[Rune]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!

It's kinda unnerving how you just repeat the same FUD words even though they have already been proven wrong (it can be terminated if unprofitable, thus is not ponzi or unsustainable). Do you not have any other arguments?

It seems that people expect that I will stand down with my idea if they simply post enough FUD in the thread. I will stand down if I'm offered a rational counter argument, or there is evidence that a majority of shares would not support this. Unless this is already the case, polluting the discussion will just serve to make it more difficult for others to make up their minds on this, and reduce overall efficiency of the company.

[Rune]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

All I can say is, I disagree with the way you think the market will receive this. Those who are smart enough to understand the system and understand why it is profitable for us to give the guarantee, will understand. Those who are not smart enough to understand, and who simply see our marketing material will probably be positively swayed. We will be accused of being a ponzi scheme by all the usual outlets no matter what we do anyway, this would not make a significant difference in that regard. Also I don't understand why you feel the need to deride me in what should be an intelligent discussion.

[tonyk]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!

[gamey]

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

[Rune]

On the one hand you're saying that the benefit of this is that we can advertise it as fixed and predictable interest, and on the other you're saying we can kill it at a moments notice.  You can't have both.

And no, the fact that it can be terminated does not mean it's sustainable.  It just means you can choose to stop sustaining it before it eats through everything else you have.

It is fixed and predictable at the moment we are selling it. We can tell them they can buy right now and get that performance. In any other system we will never be able to tell people what they can get right now, without having to come up with a disclaimer that it is variable. In a free market with enough information, the moment this becomes unprofitable it will instantly be terminated, it thus has no negative impact on the sustainability of the company, unless we are completely unable to judge the effectiveness it has. If we implement it in the beginning and we don't see quick results from it, we can just terminate it again. I personally think the results of having this will be massive, exactly because we want easy numbers and easy explanations.

[Rune]

I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming.  It isn't "vastly different".  The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations.  In theory, they should work the same.  I can't really see a difference at the motivation level.  As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency.  As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).

You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money.  yuck

Government subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.

Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.

We are still democratically decided, it is just weighted by stake.  The result is the same, you vote what is in your interest as do others.  The subsidies are wealth redistribution.  In theory, you vote for a government that is pro-subsidy (which is both sides) in a way that you find optimal.  It is the same thing in both systems.  Don't kid yourself.  The differences are a lot smaller than you claim.  Large stakeholders have more voting power so they'll be more against the subsidies, but for a lot of people it is the same system.   

The subsidies impact large shareholders to a higher degree, just like taxes (subsidies to government) impact the wealthy to higher degree than others.

So in our system the wealthy could use their stake to redistribute money to themselves via delegates.
In a normal democratic system, the poor could vote to redistribute the money of the wealthy.  (and wealthy redistribute to themselves through other means)
This is probably the largest difference IMO.

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.