Author Topic: Revised: Moonstone - New Bitsapphire Wallet: Fundraiser proposal  (Read 9841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Can you integrate it with BTS login? I hate having to rely on the GUI popping up to sign people in... an online web wallet would be much better, that way I can integrate into my login radius plugin much easier and even get it supported in the backend.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
On the webpage it has a 16 day countdown timer, and it says the crowdfund campaign will launch on the 31st. Those numbers dont add up, they are a week off?

They pushed it back to Tue, 7 April 2015.

zerosum

  • Guest
On the webpage it has a 16 day countdown timer, and it says the crowdfund campaign will launch on the 31st. Those numbers dont add up, they are a week off?

Well, if you run them through the bts market engine you will see that they match perfectly :)

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
On the webpage it has a 16 day countdown timer, and it says the crowdfund campaign will launch on the 31st. Those numbers dont add up, they are a week off?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags



Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline D4vegee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile


Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
They will always be not just an issue, but the long-term death sentence for any crypto system which does not facilitate native credit creation, which would completely circumvent the whole banking and fiat world. So in a sense, looking at money as primarily a commodity rather than credit (e.g. the Austrian school) is the primary long-term inhibitor and therefore valuation limitor of any DAC. This is so not because commodity money is inherently bad, but because in a free market it game theoretically loses to credit money.

Pulling off credit on the blockchain is tricky. Relying on preserving reputation / credit score as an incentive for debtors to pay back the money they owe only gets us so far. What we would really want are assets representing property rights to be used as collateral for debt (e.g. mortgage-backed securities except implemented with smart contracts that have a lien on the property deed asset and can sell this asset in an open auction on the blockchain to pay back the debt owed). But for these assets to have any value requires an enforcer in the physical world to enforce these property rights. So then we just end up on relying on the reputation of the enforcer and people's belief that this enforcer can (and will) actually enforce the property rights claimed by the virtual asset.

But anyway, even though these things would be really nice to have on a DAC, I don't see how not having it is all that much of a value limiter for the DAC. The credit-based assets and the property rights assets do not directly add any value to the core stake of the DAC (e.g. BTS). Perhaps it would increase adoption and transaction volume and thus increase the revenue of the DAC from transaction fees. But treating BTS as a commodity and using that as the basis to give cryptocurrency, such as BitAssets, value does directly increase the value of BTS as adoption of the cryptocurrency grows.
 

Offline bitsapphire

Thanks for the response.

A DAC where possible may cannibalise others if it may benefit significantly from doing so. Blockchain.info is extremely valuable and earns $250 000+ in revenue per month for the owners. I was wondering if there was a threat to your business model in that BTS may use the delegate system to offer a competitor to Moonstone so that some of the monetisation revenue from a popular wallet flowed into our DAC and to our developers instead of a third party like BitSapphire?

Also BTC38 for example has been wonderful to BTS but because they control a large amount of BTS they are also a potential risk and a valuation limiter - it’s hard to gain value as a decentralized exchange being at the mercy of one centralized exchange. I was wondering if it makes more sense for BTS to build a wallet like Moonstone partly around delegate instead of third party control if this could be a factor?  (I guess you won't be controlling the BTS so probably not.)

I think the project is good though & I wish you luck with it.

Thanks Empirical,

Whenever the discussion arises what a DAC/DAO can and can't do competitively against centralized entities such as Bitsapphire I like to point people to this 1937 essay titled "The Nature of the Firm" by R.H. Coase.

While any DAC or DAO project shareholders could hypothetically incentivize of directly compensate developers or any kind of stakeholders to switch or create a competing product. However the added value and reason for the existence of firms is not funding, it's the added value of coherent resource allocation in a game (e.g. a market). Hence the most a DAC/DAO could do is fund a competitor, but I highly doubt that it will ever be possible for a DAC/DAO to out-do strategic long-term resource allocation as compared to centralized entities.

On the issue of centralized exchanges:
They will always be not just an issue, but the long-term death sentence for any crypto system which does not facilitate native credit creation, which would completely circumvent the whole banking and fiat world. So in a sense, looking at money as primarily a commodity rather than credit (e.g. the Austrian school) is the primary long-term inhibitor and therefore valuation limitor of any DAC. This is so not because commodity money is inherently bad, but because in a free market it game theoretically loses to credit money.

Moonstone won't hold any private keys, hence we won't be able to vote like BTER could have done.
Register and get your personal Moonstone Wallet Beta here: https://moonstone.io/login-register.html

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I think there is a conflict of interest with you releasing a BTS wallet that may have competitors but also controlling our main information vehicle - the forum. Do you agree?

Blockchain.info earns millions of dollars a year in revenue. Isn't a DAC's optimal strategy to support, promote and build a following for its own wallet or one that gives a good portion of future monetisation revenue to our developers and DAC?

We think it is a problem that we are creating BitShares products which in the long term potentially can become startups and at the same time are in charge of the forum. Keep in mind though that we purposefully took a very laissez faire approach to moderating. The mods did most of the moderation, we only intervened on a technical level and from time to time when a mod overstepped his boundaries.

I personally hope that sooner rather than later we'll be able to use some sort of user friendly decentralized forum. That might be the best long term solution for distributed projects.

I did not get your second question? Could you elaborate?


Thanks for the response.

A DAC where possible may cannibalise others if it may benefit significantly from doing so. Blockchain.info is extremely valuable and earns $250 000+ in revenue per month for the owners. I was wondering if there was a threat to your business model in that BTS may use the delegate system to offer a competitor to Moonstone so that some of the monetisation revenue from a popular wallet flowed into our DAC and to our developers instead of a third party like BitSapphire?

Also BTC38 for example has been wonderful to BTS but because they control a large amount of BTS they are also a potential risk and a valuation limiter - it’s hard to gain value as a decentralized exchange being at the mercy of one centralized exchange. I was wondering if it makes more sense for BTS to build a wallet like Moonstone partly around delegate instead of third party control if this could be a factor?  (I guess you won't be controlling the BTS so probably not.)

I think the project is good though & I wish you luck with it.
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline bitsapphire

I think there is a conflict of interest with you releasing a BTS wallet that may have competitors but also controlling our main information vehicle - the forum. Do you agree?

Blockchain.info earns millions of dollars a year in revenue. Isn't a DAC's optimal strategy to support, promote and build a following for its own wallet or one that gives a good portion of future monetisation revenue to our developers and DAC?

We think it is a problem that we are creating BitShares products which in the long term potentially can become startups and at the same time are in charge of the forum. Keep in mind though that we purposefully took a very laissez faire approach to moderating. The mods did most of the moderation, we only intervened on a technical level and from time to time when a mod overstepped his boundaries.

I personally hope that sooner rather than later we'll be able to use some sort of user friendly decentralized forum. That might be the best long term solution for distributed projects.

I did not get your second question? Could you elaborate?

I too am also glad to see that you are open to dialog.

Can a user of the wallet approve 1 out of the 4-5 delegates or is it a all or none deal?

Also can you confirm that you have never received funding from I3 or individual users? Other then your forum pay of course.

Upfront 5 delegates are voted in but you can opt-out with a clearly defined field. Once you open the wallet you'll be able to unvote as many as you want.

We have received about 2k USD in BTC/PTS from Nikolai for the dotp2p website and two BitShares inforgraphics which are still in use today. We have received from Invictus a one time donation of 2k USD when we took over the forum from Amazon. Since then we did not ask for any more donations because it seemed to us we should not be sucking money out of the developers building BitShasres. For the past 6 months we have been running the forum out of our own pocket (Bitsapphire) including server cost, maintenance, and moderation. So no, there is no forum pay, this is a loss business for us at the moment. We hoped that the community would vote one of our delegates in to offset some of our expenses, but because we are simply to busy working and don't have enough time doing PR for our delegate we were not able to keep the delegate position. We might have to add advertisements some time in 1-2 months to the forum if we don't find an alternative approach to funding the forum.
Register and get your personal Moonstone Wallet Beta here: https://moonstone.io/login-register.html

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
This proposal is starting to make more sense to me.