Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)

[tbone]

   I totally agree, the timing just isn't right at the moment.  Although with the newly developing idea of having features funded via UIAs, I think the time for the Decentralized Gateway could come sooner than otherwise expected.  One thing is for sure, though.  NOTHING will happen if a bunch of worker proposals are just thrown up without extensive discussion on the forum first.   

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

I don't think that's the case. I voted no in the poll and I would love to see this. I just don't think we can withstand it right now. My "no" vote isn't a vote for "doesn't think BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading," it's a vote for, "patience, let's do this when we can afford it."

[fuzzy]

Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

It's time for me to move on to other things. Best wishes for BTS and the couple of nice people I got to know here over the last years! 

thank you seraph for spending the time, energy and money to try to get the worker proposal on this.  it would have been absolutely wonderful to see. 

[seraphim]

Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

It's time for me to move on to other things. Best wishes for BTS and the couple of nice people I got to know here over the last years! 

[fuzzy]

- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

this is a truly decentralized gateway that bitshares holders would end up holding.  wouldn't this be just one more way to give black swan protection since bts price would not be the only factor keeping us alive? 

If so, I honestly think it is worth the worker proposal asking for it (as long as it is done professionally--like I'm pretty sure seraph can do), but I also think that a worker proposal could distribute tokens on maybe a quarterly basis to bts owners as they pay for it to be constructed...and also potentially volunteers who are very capable (mindphlux would be someone who could probably contribute quite alot if motivated to do so!).   

To me, I use an open ledger account, a light wallet and would also use this.  Gotta collect them all!

Oh and ****notice****
Seraph has stated many times this exchange would be fully owned by bitshares holders.  Which is...yes you guessed it: "huge".

[seraphim]

By using multisig addresses controlled by 3-16 elected signers to store coins and representing assets.

[Shentist]

Seems you are right and I was wrong about it

According to
http://legacy.bitsharesblocks.com/delegate/earnings?name=dev-metaexchange.monsterer
he has earned
1,428,559.80 BTS

that's way less than $30k though

correct - this is the reason why you find our codebase here https://github.com/wildbunny/metaexchange

i think i don't get the concept. how do you achieve a trustfree transfer from BTC into BTS? the best way at the moment are services like metaexchange, because i don't need an account and
the transaction will be executed in a couple of minutes, so the worry of hacks is limited for the user.

how will this been changed with your approach?

[fuzzy]

I'm not sure if I get your question.

The control asset holders will be able to vote on distribution of fees between signers, them and burning. This asset will partly be sharedropped (the workers part), and can be obtained by sponsoring the development at the end of the funding phase if the workers secured the initial amount.
The asset shouldn't be used to speculate, but to decide on the terms of the gateway. There won't be big returns through deposit/withdrawal fees. Other exchanges live from fees on trades.

If at any point there's really a LOT of coins going in and out, the amount of signers will need to be raised. Up to 16, it'll cost a lot of money to pay them already. Then there's a lot of transactions between the different multisig addresses, which need to be covered from the fees too. Again: The project is not expected to be profitable, only to sustain itself!

A decentralized gateway would add a lot of value to the BTS blockchain, and new applications could be built upon it, a decentralized shapeshift being the most obvious.

I think he means assets that have fees generated to either buy them back (and burn them) or to send out as dividends to holders.

[seraphim]

I'm not sure if I get your question.

The control asset holders will be able to vote on distribution of fees between signers, them and burning. This asset will partly be sharedropped (the workers part), and can be obtained by sponsoring the development at the end of the funding phase if the workers secured the initial amount.
The asset shouldn't be used to speculate, but to decide on the terms of the gateway. There won't be big returns through deposit/withdrawal fees. Other exchanges live from fees on trades.

If at any point there's really a LOT of coins going in and out, the amount of signers will need to be raised. Up to 16, it'll cost a lot of money to pay them already. Then there's a lot of transactions between the different multisig addresses, which need to be covered from the fees too. Again: The project is not expected to be profitable, only to sustain itself!

A decentralized gateway would add a lot of value to the BTS blockchain, and new applications could be built upon it, a decentralized shapeshift being the most obvious.

[rgcrypto]

Could your project be funded via Fee Backed Assets?

[seraphim]

- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

No, it's not supposed to be a profitable business. It would be decentralized and open source.

The other crypto gateways aren't different to centralized exchanges, they require the user to trust a 3rd party. My goal is to create a completely trustless gateway to make BTS the first fully decentralized crypto exchange ever.

The only stream of income would be deposit/withdrawal fees, which would be used to pay the signers. Asset holders would be able to vote on a part of that going to them (or get burned), but initially it would all go to signers.
With a fee of 0.5% for deposits and withdrawals, a monthly 10 BTC in and out would result in 0.1 BTC, to be divided between at least 3 signers. There's not much room for asset holders to take a share of that. And there's no way for me to make anything out of it after it's released.

This is not about creating a traditional business, but a DAC. With a very big A.


//edit:
As soon as you grasp the whole concept, you'll also realize why the 30k are the lower limit to be able to create a working prototype. A fully featured product would require much more.
Initially I wanted to crowdfund with an asset only, but Stan proposed the workers. And he's right. It would benefit BTS as a whole by bringing in new users (traders!), and there's very little profit, if any, to be expected for investors.

[TravelsAsia]

workers are primarily for developing bitshares, not funding external developments.

since you're building an exchange, you're looking for our affiliate/referral program to get extra funds.

or make a kickstarter asset.

@mindphlux 

 

If it's a strong enough need, create the kickstarter like asset.

[xeroc]

Seems you are right and I was wrong about it

According to
http://legacy.bitsharesblocks.com/delegate/earnings?name=dev-metaexchange.monsterer
he has earned
1,428,559.80 BTS

that's way less than $30k though

[Akado]

- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

Although I agree with this, MetaExchange had delegates being paid if I remember correctly.

[xeroc]

- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!