Minimizing the impact of dilution

[CoinHoarder]

First, let me say I don't blame BM for selling BTS to cover expenses such as office rent, employee salary, etc.... the man has to eat. Furthermore, it is necessary that developers be able to diversify or cash out, otherwise there is no incentive for developers to work for the blockchain.

I confess to selling from ANGEL today to cover some expenses.   Unfortunately, I sold just prior to the big pump  

On the brighter side super33 appears to be out of BTS to sell.

I have still not been convinced that this feature would not reduce downward pressure on the BTS token. Especially if a premium was charged. I personally would make 100% of my BTS token purchases from this fund if I knew all of the BTC would go towards development, and I would pay a 10%-15% premium to do so.

[CoinHoarder]

If we were going to utilize the reserve fund I think we could find better ways to spend those funds than locking up btc.  Something like shorting bitassets into existence and closing the peg would do more for us imo.

I agree. This doesn't have anything to do with the reserve fund.

[puppies]

If we were going to utilize the reserve fund I think we could find better ways to spend those funds than locking up btc.  Something like shorting bitassets into existence and closing the peg would do more for us imo. 

[CoinHoarder]

This would have the same impact as any other solution. Price is a function of supply and demand.

It reminds me of the first minute of this video. Which glass has more juice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtLEWVu815o

Good point, so it seems that my original idea as listed in the OP would not really work. I feel like it may have some legs as I altered it in my reply to empirical though.

If a premium were charged then only true supporters (read: hodlers) of the project would utilize it. I think true long-term believers are much less likely to sell than any random speculator, which allows for less downward pressure on the price as far as dilution goes. Thus, supply changes on paper, but not in the market on the sale side where it matters most. CNX (or any other contractor) needs to pay bills, pay its employees, and diversify its paycheck, which exerts a lot of downward pressure on the price. I feel like overall the downward pressure on the market is reduced with this method as it is shifted onto a different chain's market... Bitcoin's. It is also an improvement over the traditional fundraising efforts of coins such as Bitcoin or Litecoin, where stakeholder donate coins and receive nothing tangible in return. In this case, money is raised for development, but the donator gets something immediately tangible in return which IMO would increase the likelihood that someone would donate in the first place. I think that this method has a lesser effect on the price than with worker proposals as they currently exist.

[Chronos]

This would have the same impact as any other solution. Price is a function of supply and demand.

It reminds me of the first minute of this video. Which glass has more juice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtLEWVu815o

[CoinHoarder]

I don't get it.

Increased demand for existing BTS is what increases the value of BTS.

You seem to be suggesting that whenever there is new demand we should print new BTS to meet that demand. 

This will reduce demand for existing BTS and lower the value BTS would otherwise have had.

Yes, it would slightly reduce the demand for Bitshares on the open market. However, I do not think it would have a great effect. Since everyone still pays the going market rate, then people will still buy via the other currently existing avenues. This would simply be an extra option available to someone that wanted to purchase BTS tokens. I think it would mainly be used by people that are deeply involved with the ecosystem already.

If you think it is necessary, a premium could be charged so that this doesn't affect buy support too much (in this scenario most people would choose to purchase via original avenues.) Then it would work similar to how other coins raise money for development with one large difference... the "donator" gets something tangible in return for their donation. The amount raised for development would be smaller, but it would have all of the same benefits and have less effect on buy support.

[Empirical1.2]

I don't get it.

Increased demand for existing BTS is what increases the value of BTS.

You seem to be suggesting that whenever there is new demand we should print new BTS to meet that demand. 

This will reduce demand for existing BTS and lower the value BTS would otherwise have had.

[CoinHoarder]

Admittedly most of my ideas are "half baked", but can someone explain to me the issue with this? There are no replies so that makes me think there is an obvious issue, yet, I am still not able to see it.

[CoinHoarder]

Feel free to poke holes in this... I am the king of horrible ideas apparently.

A. User wants to buy BTS
B. The committee members publish the Bitcoin address, so delegates can monitor it using a Bitcoin blockchain data API (multiple ones in case of down time.)
C. A BTS user sends BTC to a multi-signature address setup by committee members.
D. A smart contract then "prints" BTS for the user using the current market value (via delegate feeds) worth of BTS whenever over 51% of the delegates agree someone has deposited money to the address. It would then be redeemable similar to PTS/AGS shares.
E. The user has BTS that he will likely not dump immediately, as he got no discount and paid the current market value.
F. The BTS token supply grows, but there is no immediate (or certain) downward pressure to the BTS value.
G. Downward pressure by the developers selling the coins for expenses happens on other chains, positively affecting BTS value by reducing downward pressure.

This could possibly be gamed with any coin other than Bitcoin, which is why I suggest we only allow Bitcoin deposits. The cryptocurrency used in this must have large enough liquidity so that it cannot be easily gamed. Maybe you could tie bridge services into this idea somehow since they already have the bridge part taken care of.