Can you expand and be specific about what you mean here?
When someone launches a Bitshares chain with DPOS, it's effectively an IPO for a company with delegates effectively being the board. Via BitUSD and assuming BitUSD actually perform as intended, you can long and short the company without the need for an exchange. An overlay protocol with smart contracts would allow for complex derivatives to be developed.
In terms of governance, one could attach a contractual connection to ownership of the bitshares asset to election rights for the company's actual board and pretty much anything else you'd like from what the company spends its money on to major events like mergers and acquisitions. It is important to point out that digital assets have no control over physical assets thus you would need a jurisdiction that supports these rights. I find it most likely in Africa, South America and Asia where countries could view this structure as a new way of bringing investment capital.
The point is guys that Dan invented IPO in a box. I was pointing out that it shouldn't be wasted on low hanging fruit like music and lottery games.
In your last two post I feel almost as if bitUSD etc. gets lapsed. Isn't this Daniel's way of solving the problem of having market-cap meddle with asset transfers? It's okay to be skeptical that it will work, but in Daniel's shoes the focus is exactly there. If I got it wrong it would be interesting to hear more about what the difference there is.
When you are focusing on DNS, Music, Lottery and months of next generation consensus research, then you cannot honestly say the primary focus has been BitUSD. It is an experiment that requires market validation. The truth is that the only thing connection BitUSD to USD is the name. Nothing else. You are betting that the market will properly price these assets. Futures contracts force delivery to the final holder and thus have a direct connection to the underlying asset. BitUSD do not.
Second, pegging something to the dollar is not an end solution for building a better currency. You are basically saying the USD is good enough- so why not use the dollar to begin with? I'm saying build a basket of commodities, currencies, equities and other instruments that will effective have a constant value in terms of buying power. If BitUSD works, then this basket can be a fiat asset.
I have two fundamental concerns when proposing a new money. First, it shouldn't be managed by a human run central bank. Second, it shouldn't be deflationary or inflationary if possible. Value should be held as constant as possible or at least focused within a narrow volatility band in reference to a basket like CPI. The goal here is to have wealth storage in appreciating assets and means of exchange done in a value neutral currency. See Capacity exchange for more details.
This isn't correct. POS gives a great deal more flexibility to distribution. Theoretically you do not have to distribute all coins on day one. The distribution allowed by POS is way more flexible than you seem to believe. In fact I could write a chain that just paid out to hashers who didn't provide security, if I chose. I would actually have to buy-in to the belief that somehow miners are a more valued way to distribute coins to consider such silliness, but it is at least possible.
With POW you do not have near this flexibility. POW defines both security and distribution for the most part. This isn't near the case with POS. POW miners do not necessarily have incentives aligned with helping the network, so I can't begin to fathom why you think distributing to them is better
If the people who have all the power are coin holders, then why would coin holders accept deterioration of their holdings to broaden distribution? I agree one could develop all kinds of schemes with PoS to handle distribution differently from a 100 percent premine; however, no one seems to have done so at the moment with any degree of success.
Second, PoS seems to be a more hands on system than a PoW system. I understand the whole DAC notion and the goal of making currency holders shareholders, yet if my goal in acquiring the asset is merely means of exchange, then from both the merchant and consumer side, I should really only care about value stability and efficiently of exchange. If you are considering the asset to be a cryptoequity and want governance to be in some way connected to the equity holders, then DPOS is a perfect system, kudos.
For the record, I really dislike PoW in its current form. I think rewards ought to be connected to network maintenance, upgrades, increases in interoperability and driving adoption. At the very least, it would be nice to develop a socially beneficial PoW doing something like folding proteins, unfortunately that whole O(n) -> O(1) requirement is a pain in the ass.
Topic: Charles Hoskinson Left Ethereum? (Read 25078 times)
