Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Proposal Idea: Privatisation Beyond bitAssets - ALL classes of instrument  (Read 612 times)

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit

We are all constantly debating over the best form for bitAssets to take. We are all trying to have our voice heard as to what we think is the best structure. So why not let us put in place whatever structure we like?

There are people in this community that have skills to design and develop all sorts of block-chain based equivalents to CFDs, futures, options, ETFs, prediction markets etc. So instead of trying to funnel this through a resource constrained core development team, with bytemaster acting as the queue master, could we do something like the following:

- Allow Designers to design and develop code templates for different classes of instrument, that operate to different rules,
- Promoters can use these templates to specify their particular parameters, pay a fee to have it accepted into the core bitShares code, and pay a fee to the Designer

Privatised bitAssets will allow anybody to take the bitAsset template and reset the parameters how they like. The above approach extends this to any class or form we can imagine, so that we can build new markets.

I personally believe that we have all been somewhat obsessed by trying to find the perfect bitAsset structure (and especially currency structure) that will suit everybody's needs and wants. But such a structure does not exist. Instead we need to realise that there are many possible structures, just as there are in the traditional financial environment, that each meet different needs and purposes. What I'm looking for here is a way to make that happen more effectively and faster, rather than the current process of trying to force a million pigs through the poor old python (or choosing one pig from the million). I'm not a coder/developer, so others may have better ideas on how such a goal could be implemented.

Not sure how clear this is, hopefully you get the gist.

Offline Thom

I think you were quite clear in your description.

It's a great idea IMO, especially since this is an experimental ecosystem. Who knows what the "best" approach is for a BitAsset. You may very well turn out to be right, there is no best approach, no one size fits all BA, or, if you're wrong then the best will be chosen by the market and the others will fade away into obscurity.

As to what level of manpower is required to implement such a "BA template" scheme I think that's gonna take a core developer's perspective to estimate.

The way BM talked about the 1.0 release several months back, an approach like your suggestion would be a natural fit. We'll see if this thread gets any traction. The dev team has their hands full right now so I wouldn't be too optimistic for the near term.

In general I like your thinking on this  +5%

You might consider amending your post to list the configurable elements (the knobs people can turn to tailor the BA to their taste) which would help get people thinking about the range of possibilities or scope of what should be considered. Also, keep in mind if the consensus of the devs is that the cost to implement is high enough, it might make more sense to wait for touring complete scripting to implement. That of course is quite a ways off into the future.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 03:27:37 AM by Thom »

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
You might consider amending your post to list the configurable elements (the knobs people can turn to tailor the BA to their taste) which would help get people thinking about the range of possibilities or scope of what should be considered. Also, keep in mind if the consensus of the devs is that the cost to implement is high enough, it might make more sense to wait for touring complete scripting to implement. That of course is quite a ways off into the future.
Thanks for these suggestions Thom. I'll prepare something like this as soon as I can.

Offline monsterer

I hate to say it, but this is basically Etherium that you're describing here. The problem that they'll have with their privatised instrument classes is that none of them are 'official' so will have exactly the same class of trust and adoption problems that any product/business has getting set up, on top of the existing problems that the blockchain itself has in getting established, making this path a slow burn, so to speak.
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
  • BTS: starspirit
I hate to say it, but this is basically Etherium that you're describing here. The problem that they'll have with their privatised instrument classes is that none of them are 'official' so will have exactly the same class of trust and adoption problems that any product/business has getting set up, on top of the existing problems that the blockchain itself has in getting established, making this path a slow burn, so to speak.
monsterer, reflecting on your comment here, I think the key difference is I envisage this flexibility being incorporated into the core bitShares protocol, as an extension of privatised Smartcoins. My understanding of BM's announcements for 2.0 is that keeping smart contracts within the core protocol makes all the difference in network performance compared to the Ethereum approach. Still thinking this through, but there are 2 main changes to Smartcoins to achieve the intent of the OP:

i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

Offline monsterer

i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

ii) requires a scripting language built into the blockchain, and the complexity equals that of etherium.

I think there is a plan for smart contracts of some kind, but the details aren't available yet.
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
  • BTS: starspirit
i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

ii) requires a scripting language built into the blockchain, and the complexity equals that of etherium.

I think there is a plan for smart contracts of some kind, but the details aren't available yet.
But aren't privatised Smartcoins just script as well? What if the scripting were limited in scope to certain components of the Smartcoin design? For example -

- customised calculation for changes to the fair value of the token, based on feed prices, rather than "fair = feed"
- defining the inputs and validation checks for self-creation orders
- customised method of re-distributing tokens on other types of special orders, such as settlement
etc

This is the sort of thing I had in mind. Would that still be just as complex as ethereum?
If this is not possible, I suppose we would need to request the developer team write the scripts themselves as a project?


Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
It is my understanding that smart contracts will be implemented in BTS.
However, complicated smart contracts are a drag on the system so only 'official' smart contracts will be run in a way that is capable of 100k tps.
Users will be able to issue other smart contracts but they will be less efficient until such time that they are deemed useful/desirable enough to become 'official' and warrant the extra resources.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline monsterer

But aren't privatised Smartcoins just script as well?

No, and IMO calling bitshares a 'smart contract platform' is a bit misleading.

As far as I know, the algorithm they use is hardcoded into the client, along with some parameters which you can adjust. Whether you can still achieve your individual goals by adjusting the parameters and using a sequence of such processes is something that's worth exploring, tho.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BTS: cylonmaker2053
i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

ii) requires a scripting language built into the blockchain, and the complexity equals that of etherium.

I think there is a plan for smart contracts of some kind, but the details aren't available yet.

this is definitely a cool idea for future experimentation; i know i say this often, but i think the community should focus all effort on making the existing p2p asset trading platform awesome, make it such a compelling value proposition for the handful of assets currently trading, and then encourage the natural transition for these assets to be used in trade. If we get this right for even just bitUSD, then the entire network would be orders of magnitude more valuable. from there, experimentation with other value propositions / use cases for the blockchain can proceed with a big source of capital underlying the base.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

ii) requires a scripting language built into the blockchain, and the complexity equals that of etherium.

I think there is a plan for smart contracts of some kind, but the details aren't available yet.

this is definitely a cool idea for future experimentation; i know i say this often, but i think the community should focus all effort on making the existing p2p asset trading platform awesome, make it such a compelling value proposition for the handful of assets currently trading, and then encourage the natural transition for these assets to be used in trade. If we get this right for even just bitUSD, then the entire network would be orders of magnitude more valuable. from there, experimentation with other value propositions / use cases for the blockchain can proceed with a big source of capital underlying the base.
I appreciate the sentiment. We have limited resources and need to prioritise. What I'm trying to do is my bit to help get the asset trading platform to the position where it is "awesome" enough to be self-marketing. When we see demand for our core products expanding their markets beyond the immediate bitShares community, we will know we have reached that first stage of success. We've made a lot of technical progress in that direction, but its not complete. We will have a network platform unmatched in its performance. To really impress the broader market with our products, we need stable currencies that maintain tight pegs, tokens that track the performance of any external asset with tight tracking errors, and the ability to take leveraged positions based on asset performance. Only then, in my opinion, will we have all the essential ingredients for an unmatched peer to peer exchange.

The generality sought in my OP was perhaps overly ambitious for now. Yet I am hoping that we can put in place a project to extend the proposed scope of Smartcoins, to the minimal point required where the designs for these exchange services can all be properly implemented, to launch our wider success. Then that will just be the end of the beginning...


Offline topcandle

I agree with op. I see this being a natural fit with Sidechains.  Each sidechain could have its customized asset parameters yet still be interoperable with the entire bts network.  There just needs to be a quick launch tool for setting up a sidechain and easy user interface for tuning the specification. Of it.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline toast

forum.makerdao.org

You can view it as competition or as a free r&d lab that can't create scalable solutions
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline cylonmaker2053

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Saving the world one block at a time
    • View Profile
  • BTS: cylonmaker2053
i) more flexibility in the incentive structure, for example the possibility to take a royalty as well as just trading fees, and the ability to share fees between the designer of the asset class and promoters of various specific assets within that class (parametizations of that asset), and

ii) extending the flexibility of privatised Smartcoin design, primarily through the use of customised scripting, to generalise its application to a much more diverse range of possible structures.

ii) requires a scripting language built into the blockchain, and the complexity equals that of etherium.

I think there is a plan for smart contracts of some kind, but the details aren't available yet.

this is definitely a cool idea for future experimentation; i know i say this often, but i think the community should focus all effort on making the existing p2p asset trading platform awesome, make it such a compelling value proposition for the handful of assets currently trading, and then encourage the natural transition for these assets to be used in trade. If we get this right for even just bitUSD, then the entire network would be orders of magnitude more valuable. from there, experimentation with other value propositions / use cases for the blockchain can proceed with a big source of capital underlying the base.
I appreciate the sentiment. We have limited resources and need to prioritise. What I'm trying to do is my bit to help get the asset trading platform to the position where it is "awesome" enough to be self-marketing. When we see demand for our core products expanding their markets beyond the immediate bitShares community, we will know we have reached that first stage of success. We've made a lot of technical progress in that direction, but its not complete. We will have a network platform unmatched in its performance. To really impress the broader market with our products, we need stable currencies that maintain tight pegs, tokens that track the performance of any external asset with tight tracking errors, and the ability to take leveraged positions based on asset performance. Only then, in my opinion, will we have all the essential ingredients for an unmatched peer to peer exchange.

The generality sought in my OP was perhaps overly ambitious for now. Yet I am hoping that we can put in place a project to extend the proposed scope of Smartcoins, to the minimal point required where the designs for these exchange services can all be properly implemented, to launch our wider success. Then that will just be the end of the beginning...

Love it!  +5% +5% +5%

Offline jcrubino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
I hate to say it, but this is basically Etherium that you're describing here. The problem that they'll have with their privatised instrument classes is that none of them are 'official' so will have exactly the same class of trust and adoption problems that any product/business has getting set up, on top of the existing problems that the blockchain itself has in getting established, making this path a slow burn, so to speak.

Additionally, a critical question is how well can the blockchain + network scale to multiple privatized assets, I assume popular ones will get copied.

As with creating a startup, the Bitshares DAC should maintain a laser focus on creating products that fit the customer needs.  At first glance it might appear that there is a larger market that is made up of devs and promoters but trading continues to be the largest single use for cryptocurrencies.  Big business is now invested in Bitcoin and creating siloed applications with it (Overstock, Nasdaq, etc).  Will creating a business made to sell to developers / promoters create a better value than creating a blockchain with focused features available to those not part of the mainstream offerings in this domain?  I do not know myself, and I remain skeptical of privatized assets to some extent.  A blockchain like Bitshares cannot have a failwhale moment should blockchain applications become used en mass due to popularity of a corporate offering.  A fail on a small chain could be its downfall, and event not needed when blockchain applications are being built to preserve peoples confidence in the face of other public market troubles (China, Greece).

« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 04:15:03 PM by jcrubino »

 

Google+