Author Topic: Privatizing BitAssets  (Read 31204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
OK, so does buying the name SUPER (for example) automatically get you the entire set of names SUPER.<X>?
Do we need the "dot"?
And if the use of a "dot" in the nomenclature is not consistent with the codes used on external exchanges, I assume they can just choose to display it without the "dot" if they are willing to list it?
Maybe there is a reference source somebody could point me to that talks about the rules and fees for UIA names?

Offline ag

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
I've just read the original post by BM. I think private gateways, much easier, and provide much the same service as private bitAssets for currencies anyways. Either is not devoid of counterparty risk. Maybe private bitAssets for unit that tracks an index like I've seen suggested. Since for gateways to make that unit they'd have to take shares in that publicly traded fund/stock as deposit which seems ridiculous to think at the moment.
 
Also about private gateways, certainly we realize private gatways that issue bitcoin IOU has less counterparty risk than fiat gateways. There is not the risk of government regulation, seizure. but I wonder what the most trustworthy bitcoin gateway looks like. If it is very trustworthy, maybe these bitcoin IOU's would be used to collateralize a private bitAsset (or bitIndex). Since surely there is more demand to go long bitcoin, even at 30 days, than there is to go long bitshares.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
OK, so does buying the name SUPER (for example) automatically get you the entire set of names SUPER.<X>?
Do we need the "dot"?
And if the use of a "dot" in the nomenclature is not consistent with the codes used on external exchanges, I assume they can just choose to display it without the "dot" if they are willing to list it?

Offline monsterer

I also think its MOTHER.DAUGHTER .. but honestly an not sure
Yes asset names work like that, the confusion is due to account names being the other way around, like dev.bitsharesblocks etc.

Ahhh, I stand corrected :)
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline svk

I also think its MOTHER.DAUGHTER .. but honestly an not sure
Yes asset names work like that, the confusion is due to account names being the other way around, like dev.bitsharesblocks etc.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I also think its MOTHER.DAUGHTER .. but honestly an not sure

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Other way around - you'd need to own USD to make SUPER.USD

monsterer, are you sure? I just noticed there are many existing UIAs that share common prefixes, such as BDR.<X> and BREAKOUT.<X>, just as the first 2 examples I saw.
There happens to be a BDR.USD and a BREAKOUT.USD, but these seem to be two different issuers...

Offline monsterer

You can do with a dot ... SUPER.USD
So if I buy the name SUPER, does that mean I automatically own anything that is SUPER.<X>, or is that an extra cost to get the entire class? How much would this be?
I suppose anybody else could still buy SUPERB and SUPERB.X, or SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN.X, which are extensions of that label, correct?

Thanks.
(PS These are all just hypothetical examples, clearly)

Other way around - you'd need to own USD to make SUPER.USD
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
You can do with a dot ... SUPER.USD
So if I buy the name SUPER, does that mean I automatically own anything that is SUPER.<X>, or is that an extra cost to get the entire class? How much would this be?
I suppose anybody else could still buy SUPERB and SUPERB.X, or SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN.X, which are extensions of that label, correct?

Thanks.
(PS These are all just hypothetical examples, clearly)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
You can do with a dot ... SUPER.USD

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
In privatizing bitAssets, some issuers will want to issue a class of bitAssets under a common umbrella pre-fix label that identifies their brand. For example, somebody might want to issue SUPERUSD, SUPEROIL, SUPERGOLD, etc...while somebody else may want to issue competing assets under a different label like MYUSD, MYOIL, MYGOLD etc.

Under the current or proposed fee system, would it be possible for an issuer to lay sole claim to a pre-fix label such as SUPER<X> or MY<X>, so that copycats can't use the same prefix and try to take advantage of a successful brand by issuing new assets under that same umbrella name? Is this a good idea?

Also would it be possible to transfer ownership of UIA names or class labels as digital assets?

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I don't fully understand how privatised bitAssets are proposed to be created. Would they all need to operate from a common template, with each issuer's design choice limited to changing a required set of parameters? If somebody wanted to issue bitAssets with a different design structure that does not fit such a template, would this need to be done through a UIA? Is it actually possible to do this via a UIA?

Offline davidpbrown

I've suggested on the 'Ripple fined' thread, there's a difference between two classes of asset related digital token:

Class 3: Tokens with value pegged to match other assets
Class 4: Tokens that are explicitly linked to real world assets

In the event that BitShares ventures beyond Class 3 and into Class 4, it might expect more interest from Government but that should not be beyond Government helping to establish licensing and making the law clear and responsive in ways that help evidence and enforce the explicit link between digital token and asset.

Only money transport services like Ripple truely need AML and KYC etc.. another reason not to partner with Ripple.

This assuming Government acts rational.. the UK is making sensible moves but the US is already off target, so unclear what will happen in reality.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 01:04:13 pm by davidpbrown »
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline Bitcoinfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
This post makes total sense now that Ripple fines have come out.
... and I believe the devs are already working on the implementation!

No the question is now.  Are the Devs themselves being questioned by Fincen?  Arguably they and ripple have been introducing more KYC/AML features in the past few weeks. 

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
This post makes total sense now that Ripple fines have come out.
... and I believe the devs are already working on the implementation!