Author Topic: Demand for BitUSD: What are the low hanging fruit?  (Read 5885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile


What are the issues with implementing the BitUSD > USD pathway?

You have 50k and plenty of time to sit down with lawyers ?

I just made 50k up, could easily be more.

Thats why BTC is required, because existing usd->btc can deal with all the regulatory bullshit.  We would wish to partner up with someone who already has this in place. 

I don't even think I can sell btsx to a stranger in my own state face to face without a 100k bond for money transmitter license.  Otherwise I'm risking a felony.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline patrickb323

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
we need to facilitate creation of BitUSD accounts,  and bury all of the btsx and crypto related stuff from the user.   we need to attract a different type of user.


One segment that should be pursued is merchants.

Payment processors like Bitpay could offer 'no exposure to bitcoin volatility' to their customers.   This would serve those merchants who want to accept bitcoin but hate the risk.  We just need to find ways to have people store small values of BitUSD for short amount of time.  Most merchants don't care about how much btc they have,  just the current USD value.



It requires these pathways :

BTC > BitUSD
BitUSD > USD


What are the issues with implementing the BitUSD > USD pathway?


Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
So far we've got:

Darknet markets
Remittances

How about gambling?

If people could find an easy way to go from fiat to bitUSD then gambling might be a good spot. 

Darknet markets don't necessarily need btsx or bitUSD.  Volatility is not near the problem it once was with BTC. :( 

The same can be said for remittance.

I do think that if we have low transaction fees and fast confirm times, we need to start going after micro-payments.  When I first started reading about BTC I was like.. finally.. but it'll never work anytime soon.   Yet BTSX, all those in-app purchases etc.  BTSX would work well.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
The market cap of BitUSD will always be zero because the net amount of BitUSD issued is zero.
Currently there are about +490 000 BitUSD long and -490 000 BitUSD short.

Okay that makes sense. Curious, why 490k +/-?

Do you mean why 490k, or why (+/-)? It's 490k because that's the number we happen to have at the moment. The number of bitUSD is constantly fluctuating, and currently trending upwards. When someone shorts bitUSD, that bitUSD is created. When someone is subject to a margin call, their bitUSD is destroyed.

As for (+/-), that's because each bitUSD is essentially a loan; if I create bitUSD by shorting it, Im borrowing that bitUSD from the network. Now someone out there owns the bitUSD that I just shorted to them, and I owe a bitUSD debt in the same amount.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
thanks xeroc,

I do understand the concept that bit assets are pegged to their real value and no matter on which chain they are used, they have the same intrinsic value... But let's say someone owns bitusd, because he doesn't like the wild fluctuations of the shares. In the current form, they would have to exchange their bitusd for bitshares play shares, than on the gaming platform buy chips with the shares they just bought, play around, cash out in bitshares play then go back to the exchange and get bitusd back.

While having to do several steps, this person is also exposed to bitshares play value fluctuation in the process. So if there's a big drop of bitshares play value while he's trying to exchange it back to bitusd, he loses. If he could directly buy chips with bitusd, he's not exposed to the shares price fluctuation. That's the kind of assurance risk-averse people want, particularly those holding bitusd because they don't feel like being exposed to big value fluctuation.
good point ..

I'll try to contact Hackfisher and let him know about this thread!

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
I know that for Bitshares Play (or whatever the name of the gaming platform will be) the plan is to use the DAC shares as the general token to get chips for all the games. But I'm thinking out loud here... What if we could gamble bit assets on these games as well, or just exchange bit assets for game chips? That would be awesome, and the house edge would rake in bit assets as well as Bitshares play shares, so the "dividend" for the shareholders would be pretty much the same.

On the other hand, it would use the gaming platform to promote bit assets. That's what I call synergy!

Its a rough concept, nothing polished here, but a neat idea IMO
FYI:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2893.msg36083#msg36083
So does each chain have a different core asset? Are any of these assets expected to be pegged 1:1?
Are the BTS inside BTS X going to be devalued by the BTS on other chains? Or will all core assets have their own floating exchange rates?

All chains have their own shares... to facilitate cross-chain trading it would be nice if there was no need to worry about price-discovery and fluctuation.  Thus if two chains each had BitGLD then you can trade without having to consider price even though BitGLD on each chain is backed by a different shares.

thanks xeroc,

I do understand the concept that bit assets are pegged to their real value and no matter on which chain they are used, they have the same intrinsic value... But let's say someone owns bitusd, because he doesn't like the wild fluctuations of the shares. In the current form, they would have to exchange their bitusd for bitshares play shares, than on the gaming platform buy chips with the shares they just bought, play around, cash out in bitshares play then go back to the exchange and get bitusd back.

While having to do several steps, this person is also exposed to bitshares play value fluctuation in the process. So if there's a big drop of bitshares play value while he's trying to exchange it back to bitusd, he loses. If he could directly buy chips with bitusd, he's not exposed to the shares price fluctuation. That's the kind of assurance risk-averse people want, particularly those holding bitusd because they don't feel like being exposed to big value fluctuation.


Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I know that for Bitshares Play (or whatever the name of the gaming platform will be) the plan is to use the DAC shares as the general token to get chips for all the games. But I'm thinking out loud here... What if we could gamble bit assets on these games as well, or just exchange bit assets for game chips? That would be awesome, and the house edge would rake in bit assets as well as Bitshares play shares, so the "dividend" for the shareholders would be pretty much the same.

On the other hand, it would use the gaming platform to promote bit assets. That's what I call synergy!

Its a rough concept, nothing polished here, but a neat idea IMO

 +5% +5% +5%

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I know that for Bitshares Play (or whatever the name of the gaming platform will be) the plan is to use the DAC shares as the general token to get chips for all the games. But I'm thinking out loud here... What if we could gamble bit assets on these games as well, or just exchange bit assets for game chips? That would be awesome, and the house edge would rake in bit assets as well as Bitshares play shares, so the "dividend" for the shareholders would be pretty much the same.

On the other hand, it would use the gaming platform to promote bit assets. That's what I call synergy!

Its a rough concept, nothing polished here, but a neat idea IMO
FYI:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2893.msg36083#msg36083
So does each chain have a different core asset? Are any of these assets expected to be pegged 1:1?
Are the BTS inside BTS X going to be devalued by the BTS on other chains? Or will all core assets have their own floating exchange rates?

All chains have their own shares... to facilitate cross-chain trading it would be nice if there was no need to worry about price-discovery and fluctuation.  Thus if two chains each had BitGLD then you can trade without having to consider price even though BitGLD on each chain is backed by a different shares.

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
I know that for Bitshares Play (or whatever the name of the gaming platform will be) the plan is to use the DAC shares as the general token to get chips for all the games. But I'm thinking out loud here... What if we could gamble bit assets on these games as well, or just exchange bit assets for game chips? That would be awesome, and the house edge would rake in bit assets as well as Bitshares play shares, so the "dividend" for the shareholders would be pretty much the same.

On the other hand, it would use the gaming platform to promote bit assets. That's what I call synergy!

Its a rough concept, nothing polished here, but a neat idea IMO

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
The market cap of BitUSD will always be zero because the net amount of BitUSD issued is zero.
Currently there are about +490 000 BitUSD long and -490 000 BitUSD short.

Okay that makes sense. Curious, why 490k +/-?

blockchain_get_asset USD
Quote
{
  "id": 22,
  "symbol": "USD",
  "name": "United States Dollar",
  "description": "1 United States dollar",
  "public_data": "",
  "issuer_account_id": -2,
  "precision": 10000,
  "registration_date": "20140719T000000",
  "last_update": "20140719T000000",
  "current_share_supply": 4832498072,
  "maximum_share_supply": 1000000000000000,
  "collected_fees": 17779970
}

Offline AJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
The market cap of BitUSD will always be zero because the net amount of BitUSD issued is zero.
Currently there are about +490 000 BitUSD long and -490 000 BitUSD short.

Okay that makes sense. Curious, why 490k +/-?

btsx username: ajm - My BitSharesX Teaser video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DRhwgmNsm9o

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I'm curious to know the plans for liquidity in bitusd and what plans that can be set in place to solve the price problem bitcoin is having? I've heard talks about pegging... Is that for bitusd or bitshares x?

Please elaborate
Pegging is for the bitassets .. like bitUSD
you can find an introduction over here:
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Market_Peg

Offline Markus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
The market cap of BitUSD will always be zero because the net amount of BitUSD issued is zero.
Currently there are about +490 000 BitUSD long and -490 000 BitUSD short.

Offline AJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
I'm curious to know the plans for liquidity in bitusd and what plans that can be set in place to solve the price problem bitcoin is having? I've heard talks about pegging... Is that for bitusd or bitshares x?

Please elaborate
btsx username: ajm - My BitSharesX Teaser video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DRhwgmNsm9o

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
bitGOLD is backed by BTSX. In all practical purposes it is identical to bitUSD (except the name and the feeds). If bitUSD has low liquidity why do you think bitGOLD would ?

Great point.

Unrelated side question: can the "market cap" of bitUSD be tracked? Perhaps bitUSD should be listed on coinmarketcap.com and presented as its own "alt coin". We should take the focus off the bitshares exchange and focus on marketing the product. I'm absolutely convinced once the crypto community understands bitUSD, they'll be all over it.

All bitUSD are backed by BTSX , so there is no separate market cap. It is included. Market cap of bitUSD is visible from the client (or bitsharesblocks.com).

So the "market cap" is 483,250 bitUSD.

I know I will make a stupid question but please answer me to make my conlusions...

Right now on http://coinmarketcap.com/ BitSharesX has a market cap of about $67 million...

can I translate it:

real marketcap= $480,000 bitUSD +$66.5 million (2M BTSX) = $67 million ?