It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted. The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets. Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets. Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.
So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed? Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.