My impression of the various BitAssets n.0 proposals is that we're in trial-and-error mode regarding the economic side of our product. I'm not an expert on economics, yet I wonder if we're approaching our problems in the right way. Specifically, I think our flagship product, market-pegged bitassets, has shown remarkable stability *despite* a serious drop in the valuation of the underlying BTS collateral *and* a few nasty bugs in the market engine. If the current bitassets are not the problem, then why propose to change them? (That's only a rhetorical question.)
My questions are these:
* I'm somewhat familiar with the theories around market-pegged assets, and I understand that a consequence of a demand for bitassets will be more demand for BTS and in turn a higher price for BTS. Obviously, this theory does not match our current reality. Have you researched/discussed where the bug in the theory is? Is the theory based on wrong assumptions, or does it draw wrong conclusions anywhere?
* Are you aware of or have you researched methods to simulate the BitShares economic system in a way that could test the underlying theories and maybe explain why the theories are wrong? Is something like that feasible at all? Would it make sense to test new market theories (like bitassets n.0) before implementing them?
* Have you researched/discussed the possibility that the price drop of BTS could be a direct consequence of the mechanisms surrounding the market-peg (as opposed to a more or less independent side effect like shareholders losing trust)?