Show Posts
211
General Discussion / Re: Pivot, Shamelessly Imitate, or Die A Slow Death- My opinion on Bitshares
« on: January 01, 2016, 07:10:42 am »
@Randomaniac Thanks for that... it was a very informative post. I am starting to wrap my head around Nushares. This was also very helpful: https://docs.nubits.com/history/
I like this idea, but I see it as being a risky proposal for whoever fronts the bitUSD for the proposal. First of all, we would need to find someone willing to front a decent amount of bitUSD with no incentive. Technically, there is a little incentive in that if he also owned BTS tokens, then the bitUSD SmartCoin would be more liquid, and thus the BTS tokens more valuable. In this scenario all stakeholders profit off of the risk one person took. This doesn't really seem fair to the person(s) (ideally it would be more than one, but in the example I use one person) fronting the bitUSD.
I like where you're going, but unless I am missing something there is a benefit for Nushares/Nubits/BitUSD/BTS shareholders and all of the risk lies upon the shoulders of the person frontign the bitUSD. bitUSD need to be shorted into existence and bought on the market, so it's not like we can print them and "freeroll" the liquidity operation. How could we tweak your business proposition to make it worth the risk for someone to front the bitUSD (specifically a benefit to the person(s) that front the bitUSD. Raising the money would not be a problem- I see a UIA or a FBA doing that easily, but it seems risky for the party fronting the bitUSD with little incentive specifically for them.
I am still of the opinion it would be better for Bitshares to make its own version of Nubits/Nushares directly on the Bitshares chain. However, it seems your proposal would be much easier to implement and will bring benefits to all communities of shareholders (Nubits/Nushares/bitUSD/Bitshares) from their pegged assets being more liquid. That would at least be a good starting point until enough consensus can be reached (if that is indeed possible...) in the community to integrate these features on chain.
EDIT: One way to provide incentive to the person(s) fronting the bitUSD is to widen the peg, so instead of $1.10 the peg would be set at $1.13, and then instead of giving $0.50 bitUSD back to the person that fronted the bitUSD, you give back $0.53. What do you think about that? I think if there was a decent incentive the bitUSD could be raised easily.. and very quickly.
So I made this proposal the last time y'all started getting friendly and I was told you have no product to sell and I should come back after 2.0 comes out when you'll have a 'real product'. So do you have a real product now? Wanna hear the offer?
So we get an exchange to put up an nbt/bitUSD pair. Then, bitAssets hands Nu bitUSD evaluated at $1 each. Nu then puts up a fixed cost ALP operation on only the nbt buy side for that pair (we can pocket the costs for bot development). Then, we share the fixed cost between the projects, such that bitAssets pays $0.5 bitUSD for every NBT that we hand out in that liquidity operation.
The real trick is finding the price feed. It's probably going to be something like $1.1, which is still overpriced, but at least you'll start getting liquidity on the books. As BitUSD becomes a more stable product, y'all will have a wonderful lesson in liquidity provision as you try to figure out what spread and price feed to use for real-time live-market tracking.
This isn't a proposal to add virtual liquidity, like all the market maker proposals going around in this community. This will generate real liquidity on a real exchange for BitUSD sell side and NBT buy side, both will benefit.
I like this idea, but I see it as being a risky proposal for whoever fronts the bitUSD for the proposal. First of all, we would need to find someone willing to front a decent amount of bitUSD with no incentive. Technically, there is a little incentive in that if he also owned BTS tokens, then the bitUSD SmartCoin would be more liquid, and thus the BTS tokens more valuable. In this scenario all stakeholders profit off of the risk one person took. This doesn't really seem fair to the person(s) (ideally it would be more than one, but in the example I use one person) fronting the bitUSD.
I like where you're going, but unless I am missing something there is a benefit for Nushares/Nubits/BitUSD/BTS shareholders and all of the risk lies upon the shoulders of the person frontign the bitUSD. bitUSD need to be shorted into existence and bought on the market, so it's not like we can print them and "freeroll" the liquidity operation. How could we tweak your business proposition to make it worth the risk for someone to front the bitUSD (specifically a benefit to the person(s) that front the bitUSD. Raising the money would not be a problem- I see a UIA or a FBA doing that easily, but it seems risky for the party fronting the bitUSD with little incentive specifically for them.
I am still of the opinion it would be better for Bitshares to make its own version of Nubits/Nushares directly on the Bitshares chain. However, it seems your proposal would be much easier to implement and will bring benefits to all communities of shareholders (Nubits/Nushares/bitUSD/Bitshares) from their pegged assets being more liquid. That would at least be a good starting point until enough consensus can be reached (if that is indeed possible...) in the community to integrate these features on chain.
EDIT: One way to provide incentive to the person(s) fronting the bitUSD is to widen the peg, so instead of $1.10 the peg would be set at $1.13, and then instead of giving $0.50 bitUSD back to the person that fronted the bitUSD, you give back $0.53. What do you think about that? I think if there was a decent incentive the bitUSD could be raised easily.. and very quickly.
