I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me. You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you. Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally. You are so transparently manipulative to me.
Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't. Well we'll see. I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this. Then again, you think that decision was all "luck". Shrug.
I already went through great lengths to explain what I meant with luck, and later fully went back on it and admitted I was wrong. But thanks for bringing that up and using it against me. I didn't mean "you didn't understand" offensively at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was certain you were expecting the subsidy to be extremely expensive for the company, rather than safely below whatever rate we can reasonably suspect - that is what I meant, nothing else. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it not as a subsidy per se, but a guarantee of a subsidy in the event of temporary volatility. Again, I apologise if my lack of ability to communicate clearly made me inadvertently offend you.
What do you mean I'm being manipulative to you? It's like you have determined that I have bad intentions when I'm just trying to have a free discussion on an idea I have for something that I'm sure will be good for the company as a whole. I don't know who you are, but I'm sure you are doing the exact same thing right now in this very discussion, you are simply arguing for what you think is best for the company.
I will stop posting in this thread now, and give up. But I currently don't think there has been a fair discussion about this where stakeholders have actually been able to let their support known with their actual stake. We need a better process for this than simply using the forum, because it is totally impossible to figure out stake support based on forum posts.
Woah, woah, woah, you didn't "offend" me until you start trying to play victim. I just chose to explain to you what you don't understand, like you tried to explain to me what I don't understand.
The fact is, the subsidy will give people something to scream about from here on out. It very much resembles a ponzi scheme. People will say that and they will be correct. It is so novel and crazy though that we can't quite call it a ponzi scheme.
I get that the $s are relatively small, but you just keep piling on stuff we should inflate the money supply for. Your ideas are a perfect example on what happens when you start inflating a money supply.
I'd rather just find a wallet that deals in only bitUSD and is fundamentally more simple. There are tons of things that need to be done first. (bitcoind api? HELLLLLLO) Then perhaps, when that stuff is done and we need to try and entice people in then we can subsidize some guaranteed interest rate.
Not the sort of stuff you want to come up when you google bitUSD and start reading pages when deciding whether to invest. You are right through, people scream as it is, it is just this will give them some very strong ammunition. "They guarantee the % of their assets by inflating their money supply"... bah
And yes I think you are a manipulator. You just further justified my view when you attacked me, then when attacked back in same regard you play victim. You're right though, this talk isn't productive. I just want people to open their eyes and look at what people's words lead to, whether I am right or wrong.