Privatizing BitAssets

[joele]

pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .

Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares"  under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .

Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .

By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .

Ok, that's the negative views, what about the positive views?

[joele]

So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.

Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.

In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.

I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?

20 Proven Reasons Why Competition Is Good

http://businessgross.com/2013/01/21/business-competition/

[hrossik]

For now this feature could offload work from devs while allowing users to introduce the assets they want (stocks, indexes, ...). I think nobody would dare to go into competition with BitUSD atm. Maybe in the future, after the market grows.

[wuyanren]

If we're hitting road blocks on something as simply as selling BitUSD and UIA applications , how could we expect to see "you can issue your own pegged asset" advertised ?

Who is gonna advertise that ? Without effective advertisement and marketing , how is the genius who can operate a successful pegged asset out there see our message ? Let alone joint this community , create a private pegged asset , then have incentive to advertise the asset .

If somehow you can bring a lot of eye balls to attract people to create private pegged assets ....... hello , if you have the ability to market for such complicated concept , how come you can't market for BitUSD in the first place ?

Long story short :
Because we can't spread the concept A without incentive , so we create a whole new project B and hope the incentive can be self managed . But where is the incentive to promote for this project B and appeal to the right people ? Where is the incentive to promote Project B itself ?

oh，My brother，You recently like to brag

[wuyanren]

I think we just want a stable synchronization Wallet

[btswildpig]

If we're hitting road blocks on something as simply as selling BitUSD and UIA applications , how could we expect to see "you can issue your own pegged asset" advertised ?

Who is gonna advertise that ? Without effective advertisement and marketing , how is the genius who can operate a successful pegged asset out there see our message ? Let alone joint this community , create a private pegged asset , then have incentive to advertise the asset .

If somehow you can bring a lot of eye balls to attract people to create private pegged assets ....... hello , if you have the ability to market for such complicated concept , how come you can't market for BitUSD in the first place ?

If you can appeal to the right people who happens to be able to help us instead of creating chaos for us  , then we already succeed in marketing , otherwise this person wouldn't have noticed us in the first place .

Long story short :
Because we can't spread the concept A without incentive , so we create a whole new project B and hope the incentive can be self managed . But where is the incentive to promote for this project B and appeal to the right people ? Where is the incentive to promote Project B itself ? 

[wuyanren]

Why don't you do the user experience，And then talk about others.

[kenCode]

I'm thinkin I like this idea BM.
 
I have this really nice, expensive vase (with flowers in it of course) in my office. That is an asset TO ME.
I have bitSILVER which its value is derived from what the designated Delegates say it is?
"bit" asset or "tangible" asset, I don't see a difference anymore. The market should decide what's valuable.
 
Am I on the right track now?

[Empirical1.2]

pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .

Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares"  under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .

Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .

By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .

I agree. That's why I would have them with a seperate prefix and a seperate tab, perhaps even with a caution note, so that they are viewed very differently to BitAssets.

At the same time you're right if a popular privatised BitAsset failed it could be detrimental to the BTS brand image, multiple USD/other products will also introduce brand confusion too.

Trying to find a fee structure within the existing BitAsset system that incentivises better feeds and liquidity providers is probably better.
(The referral programme discussed in the other thread will take care of the general BitAsset promotion side.)   

[btswildpig]

pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .

Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares"  under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .

Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .

By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .

[abit]

So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.

Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.

In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.

I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?

[hrossik]

Pegged BitAssets with private feed are great idea! I am not so sure about all fees going to one entity, but it should be safe, as long as there is competition with internal BitAssets with the original burning strategy of fees.

[kenCode]

So, BitShares Munich will become a DAC and one of the owned assets of that DAC could be the ePlug, right?
(my meshnet product on kenCode.de)
 
You're saying the ePlug could become a "crowd"-funded bitAsset in a sense. My Lighthouse crowdfunding effort was a flop, but maybe our localized movement here could fund this.
 
Sorry for this newb question, still trying to wrap my head around all these possibilities, but I think our DAC will need some bitAssets to really become a powerful force here, right? Businesses will (moreso) want to invest in BitShares Munich then, right?
 
god i'm a newb STILL, sorry

[santaclause102]

This would be dramatically more successful if a partner with expertise in the field of marketing (financial products) and price feeds would be found? A Bloomberg (like company)? Fidor bank?

[Empirical1.2]

Sounds good. I would give privatised BitAssets a seperate prefix and seperate tab.

What about introducing maker/taker fees to the current BitAssets? (Or some other fee structure that aims to incentivize liquidity providers/market makers.)

Hopefully we get another 80% sale on the price of BitShares with this half hearted announcement, like the last time we tried aligning incentives and promoting growth (the merger announcement). 

The merger is costly and 6 months on delegate dilution has been largely ineffective at driving user growth and adding value imo, evidenced by all forum metrics trending down as well as the total BitAsset CAP declining too. Ergo the market was right on that one imo.