We simply inflate BTSX 5% the first 12-18 months, then we get a stable 10%+ return on bitAssets, as they require 2x BTSX as collateral. If we hover around 100 million market cap, this is the same as spending 5 million dollars to market bitAssets. 5% a year inflation is a trifle in this space that only a complete moron would cry about - 10x increase would be imminent if we include the proposal in a global marketing campaign.
Then I sir, am proud to be a complete moron.
I guess it is the other way around, really. The solution of simply giving away money to new customers is too stupid, too retarded to be entertained seriously by the merely intelligent. It takes a special kind of moron to see it.
I'm an advocate of maximising the yield & BitAsset demand in every conceivable way possible, even taking burned BTSX fees and giving them to BitYield and also making long term shorts compete on interest. And ELI5 explaining the trade where you short and take the other side of your trade to maximise your interest. I am ALL ABOUT maximising BitAsset demand.
Inflation though will kill BTSX and will probably kill BitShares imo. Even the inflation in Bitcoin is only acceptable because it is part of a pre-defined system, if Bitcoin changed it's inflation model, even by current shareholder consensus it's value would crater imo. Edit:
The reason is the amount of certainty investors need about their future equity in DACs & systems that currently have no legal recourse is insanely high. You hear 'forking' being thrown around a lot, but it's not really an option for the independent investor if the developer block supports another option. So their best protection is investing in a pretty iron-clad inflation system and also ones where the initial developers have enough stake to be motivated & influence but not enough to control the DAC. (Unfortunately in practice voter apathy makes that amount in question quite low.) Without that high degree of certainty investment would crater imo.
If I wasn't so heavily invested in BTSX, I'd actually encourage it just to demonstrate the point. Like if NXT cloned BitAssets and said, 'I have a great idea, let's inflate our share supply by 5% to give out yield on NXT-BitAssets', I would literally egg them on and tell them what a genius idea it was just so I could eliminate the competition.
I could be wrong though, we can try start a thread on Bitcointalk - 'BitShares inflating BTSX supply by 5% to pay great yield on BitAssets!' and see if we get a hugely positive response.Edit:
I think the fault is people are comparing DAC's to systems that work in Bricks and Mortar companies. In Bricks & Mortar companies you can give founders or a few shareholders large percentages and probably use inflation a lot more routinely as though flawed there are laws and regulations in place around them. With DAC's shareholding needs to be more decentralised with a pretty iron-clad pre-defined system of inflation or lack thereof. Once DAC's are more established and the systems around them more familiar that may change, but right now this is all kryptonite imo. Though perhaps there's a test case not as critical as BTSX it could be tested on? Edit:
One more part of my thought process, though I might not be articulating it well...
Looking at Bitcoin. I think third party DAC's that sit on top of & interact with Bitcoin may be able to get away with messing with inflation by consensus if they are properly decentralised & established
, but I don't think Bitcoin could. (Decreasing its' inflation might be possible, especially as the current model is so atrocious- but just the notion that it's supply structure could be changed at any time - would risk the faith and certainty that it could be trusted as a long term foundation and base of an ecosystem.)
If the World Gold Council decided that by turning limestone into gold and increasing the supply this year, they could maximise Jewellery sales, while decided by consensus and perhaps even short term positive (unlikely) it would destroy the notion & value of gold as a base for an entire ecosystem revolving around it. (If any human group could change its supply, even by consensus.)
I don't think you can make the share supply more than 2 billion BTSX even by consensus without destroying BTSX's long term potential to be a base of a decentralised banking & BitAsset ecosystem, which I believe is our goal.