Discussing the source of complexity in bitAssets

[zerosum]

well you can do something like bitAssets 2.0 (the original 2.0!!!)

but then again it is more complex not less.


PS
In other words if you want something to exist after the contract that created it, you end up with something "too complex' per your liking...[for me it is just fine complexity, btw]

[monsterer]

It isn't initially obvious where the source of complexity in the implementation of market pegged bitAssets (MPAs from here on) comes from. It might be informative to discuss and reason through the key points.

As I see it, the key source of complexity in the model is the need for MPAs to remain in existance after the contract which was formed between a matching short/long pair is ended. Intuitively, an MPA should cease to exist after the contract ends, but this isn't a very useful property for a currency to have - once you buy it, it should remain yours.

If the market was just pure CFD, the problem wouldn't exist, but then MPAs also wouldn't exist, since a long and a short would both be forced to close their orders and end up back in the same currency they started (BTS).

Can the two approaches be linked in a way that results in less complexity than the current or proposed bitAsset models?