0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The way to see your own bias is if you use biased words in your description: For instance, "bribe." A bribe is not only paying someone to do something you want, but specifically doing so in an illegal way. This proposal is suggesting we pay people more for holding bitUSD. Where does the money come from? US. We the investors are paying bitUSD users to hold money in our bank. Why are we doing this? To attract users to our system. Simple.
Quote from: kisa on October 29, 2014, 05:08:05 amQuote from: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 03:25:59 amQuote from: CLains on October 28, 2014, 08:40:25 pmIt is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.Words playing on connotation found so far:crazy,ponzi,drastic,expensive,go join nuBits,controversial,deceptive,artificial,US QE,scam,nuts...This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term. There has been plenty of reasonable talk in here. It is very ponzi like. This has been discussed in several posts.
Quote from: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 03:25:59 amQuote from: CLains on October 28, 2014, 08:40:25 pmIt is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.Words playing on connotation found so far:crazy,ponzi,drastic,expensive,go join nuBits,controversial,deceptive,artificial,US QE,scam,nuts...This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.
Quote from: CLains on October 28, 2014, 08:40:25 pmIt is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.Words playing on connotation found so far:crazy,ponzi,drastic,expensive,go join nuBits,controversial,deceptive,artificial,US QE,scam,nuts...This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.
It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.Words playing on connotation found so far:crazy,ponzi,drastic,expensive,go join nuBits,controversial,deceptive,artificial,US QE,scam,nuts...This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.
The question remains what incentives to offer. And the secret sauce might help also so cheer up folks - I don't see fundamental differences here, rather the emotional argument about how to frame the incentives. Let's cool down, stop being personal and get back to constructive tone and work.
Quote from: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 03:39:40 amQuote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 07:01:36 pmOn that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement. For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial. How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshareshttp://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 07:01:36 pmOn that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement. For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial. How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshareshttp://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement. For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.
If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.
Quote from: crypto_prometheus_81 on October 29, 2014, 01:01:59 amQuote from: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 12:51:31 amQuote from: crypto_prometheus_81 on October 29, 2014, 12:48:06 amAre we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure? Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril.... I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions Guess I'm the one that was missing something
Quote from: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 12:51:31 amQuote from: crypto_prometheus_81 on October 29, 2014, 12:48:06 amAre we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure? Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril.... I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions
Quote from: crypto_prometheus_81 on October 29, 2014, 12:48:06 amAre we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure? Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril.... I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure? Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril.... I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?
Quote from: gamey on October 29, 2014, 12:17:44 amI 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.
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.
Quote from: gamey on October 28, 2014, 11:59:05 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:43:38 pmYou misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.No, I don't misunderstand that. It is a simple concept. You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one. "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough" <- New sales hook? LOL. Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.All I can say is, I disagree with the way you think the market will receive this. Those who are smart enough to understand the system and understand why it is profitable for us to give the guarantee, will understand. Those who are not smart enough to understand, and who simply see our marketing material will probably be positively swayed. We will be accused of being a ponzi scheme by all the usual outlets no matter what we do anyway, this would not make a significant difference in that regard. Also I don't understand why you feel the need to deride me in what should be an intelligent discussion.
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:43:38 pmYou misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.No, I don't misunderstand that. It is a simple concept. You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one. "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough" <- New sales hook? LOL. Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.
You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.
1. What other arguments do you need more than better Ponzi that regular Ronzi!2.What was proven wrong? Where? We guarantee 5%, although we do not make 5%! -part one - sells pitch.This promise is good till you buy in! - terminable at will at any point!
Quote from: tonyk on October 29, 2014, 12:03:37 amQuote from: gamey on October 28, 2014, 11:59:05 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:43:38 pmYou misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.No, I don't misunderstand that. It is a simple concept. You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one. "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough" <- New sales hook? LOL. Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better. Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!It's kinda unnerving how you just repeat the same FUD words even though they have already been proven wrong (it can be terminated if unprofitable, thus is not ponzi or unsustainable). Do you not have any other arguments?
Quote from: gamey on October 28, 2014, 11:59:05 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:43:38 pmYou misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.No, I don't misunderstand that. It is a simple concept. You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one. "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough" <- New sales hook? LOL. Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better. Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!
On the one hand you're saying that the benefit of this is that we can advertise it as fixed and predictable interest, and on the other you're saying we can kill it at a moments notice. You can't have both.And no, the fact that it can be terminated does not mean it's sustainable. It just means you can choose to stop sustaining it before it eats through everything else you have.
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:51:25 pmQuote from: gamey on October 28, 2014, 10:42:37 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming. It isn't "vastly different". The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations. In theory, they should work the same. I can't really see a difference at the motivation level. As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency. As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares). You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money. yuckGovernment subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.We are still democratically decided, it is just weighted by stake. The result is the same, you vote what is in your interest as do others. The subsidies are wealth redistribution. In theory, you vote for a government that is pro-subsidy (which is both sides) in a way that you find optimal. It is the same thing in both systems. Don't kid yourself. The differences are a lot smaller than you claim. Large stakeholders have more voting power so they'll be more against the subsidies, but for a lot of people it is the same system. The subsidies impact large shareholders to a higher degree, just like taxes (subsidies to government) impact the wealthy to higher degree than others.So in our system the wealthy could use their stake to redistribute money to themselves via delegates.In a normal democratic system, the poor could vote to redistribute the money of the wealthy. (and wealthy redistribute to themselves through other means)This is probably the largest difference IMO.
Quote from: gamey on October 28, 2014, 10:42:37 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming. It isn't "vastly different". The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations. In theory, they should work the same. I can't really see a difference at the motivation level. As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency. As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares). You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money. yuckGovernment subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming. It isn't "vastly different". The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations. In theory, they should work the same. I can't really see a difference at the motivation level. As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency. As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares). You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money. yuck
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).
Quote from: tonyk on October 28, 2014, 10:44:13 pmQuote from: Troglodactyl on October 28, 2014, 10:38:03 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface. It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.Do not be so sure...his proposal is achieving a giant step in making this statement not so true....Anything that can be freely terminated at any time is sustainable. At any time the market gains the information that it is unprofitable, it will end instantly.
Quote from: Troglodactyl on October 28, 2014, 10:38:03 pmQuote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface. It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.Do not be so sure...his proposal is achieving a giant step in making this statement not so true....
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pmI think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface. It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).
Quote from: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 11:25:03 pmIt is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shortsThat was the original design - did the Fortune writer take the time to understand this? No, we were called a bucket shop instead. Our competitors will use this against us to pounce on our throats. They will throw out the same kinds of words that we used to describe NuBits.I agree that share dilution to re-invest in development in new infrastructure is a good idea. Dilution to raise money to provide 'parking' incentives is too direct of a path to bad publicity.
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts
Quote from: xeroc on October 28, 2014, 10:27:49 pmMaybe we should remind ourselves that we are not a classical business ... and also need not necessarily take the same strategies .. as classical businesses ..Like engineering controversy to garner publicity?
Maybe we should remind ourselves that we are not a classical business ... and also need not necessarily take the same strategies .. as classical businesses ..
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts, if the shorts compete on how much collateral they are willing to put up for that rate. Again, its by adjusting the level of security that one can fix the return.
http://fortune.com/2014/01/28/cash-menagerie-inside-the-bitcoin-confab/"Still, avarice wasn’t totally suppressed. A handful of boiler-room types were scattered around the show floor, sweating through cheap suits as they touted “ridiculously profitable” cloud-based mining services or automated bitcoin trading robots. Enthusiasm shaded into hyperbole, claims of guaranteed returns were thrown around with indictable abandon, and buttonholed interlocutors were encouraged to “reserve your spot now.” One new platform would let users “earn 5% on anything” because “we’re cutting out the middleman” — when in fact, what was being promoted was a kind of digital bucket shop, a casino disguised as a stock exchange."Can you guess who they're talking about?
How would you explain your campaign to the media?
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:15:42 pmQuoteDo we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?You realise we are talking about marketing a product, right? No, we do not require people to understand how our company works on the back-end, yes we want to throw clearly digestible numbers in their faces when telling them about our products.People don't need to know how BitShares works. But they ABSOLUTELY need to know how it makes money if they are being asked to risk their own. If you are unable to or unwilling to explain how you are able to offer them returns, the first word out of their mouths will likely be Ponzi. When I hear 5% interest guaranteed, I think to myself "whats the catch?"You: "Hey want to try our financial product? You'll get a 5% return on your investment"Me: "5%, thats pretty good. How does it work?"You: "That's not that important."Me: "Go fuck yourself"
QuoteDo we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?You realise we are talking about marketing a product, right? No, we do not require people to understand how our company works on the back-end, yes we want to throw clearly digestible numbers in their faces when telling them about our products.
Do we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 09:48:38 pmQuote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 09:45:49 pmI think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.Totally true, but that still leaves us nothing to market in our first year, and is exactly why we need the subsidy in the beginning.i don't think that 5% p.a. would be enough to attract investors seeking return into holding bitUSD for a while. feels like we are fooling ourselves with regards to how much a fair compensation should be for exposure to systemic BTS risk. Even without BTS price volatility, my guess is 100%+ yield p.a. at current, initial stage.most Western banks USD deposits yielding 0% are insured. For Argentina, or Russia perhaps, there is significant risk of local currency depreciation versus USD, and USD deposits can be seized by governments. Thus people prefer to hold cash USD, or local banks pay them 10% p.a. return on USD deposits. bitUSD could be an alternative, but yield should be priced fairly compared with BTS expected return.As BM stated before - not everyone is seeking return. Some want to diversify away from banks, some want to do business. ratailers holding small amounts of bitUSD would be a plus. Perhaps demand could be substantial in the remittance market due to fast and cheap transfers, bitUSD price stability versus USD, while the exposure to BTS systemic risk by each transacting party is very brief and comparably small (as opposed to investors seeking return). here the local gateways, perhaps even private brokers (localbitcoins idea), would be key.However, anyone thinking about marketing BTS platform to professional FX traders, please go and visit an FX trading desk first and see at what speed and what high tech is employed by leading brokers and exchanges. 10 seconds is like eternity there - BTSX isn't likely to get traction in there in the near future imo... also not sure, why someone with trading account in a bank should trade bitGOOG or bitGold instead of highly liquid Google or Gold CFD at 10 USD per trade... I am not saying bitAssets won't get even more accurately priced, gain liquidity in the future, and allow for smaller market participants without proper banking access to do all things they want at low cost. just think that the status quo with professional traders and electronic trading via exchanges, platforms like bloomberg etc. is not yet to be doubted.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 09:45:49 pmI think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.Totally true, but that still leaves us nothing to market in our first year, and is exactly why we need the subsidy in the beginning.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 09:43:30 pmQuote from: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 09:42:13 pmI've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.That implies that you can create an iron-clad guarantee that BTS will have value... not possible. Not even possible in traditional banks.Near certainty is enough. A public bail-out policy on the main bitassets would be such a gargantuan advantage. In the event of a price collapse of BTS, bitasset owners will wait a lot longer to panic and begin pulling out their own funds (that would only happen if they think that the price is literally going to 0 and the network will cease to exist). This will give a market-wide increase in confidence and will help prevent a crash from happening in the first place.
Quote from: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 09:42:13 pmI've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.That implies that you can create an iron-clad guarantee that BTS will have value... not possible. Not even possible in traditional banks.
I've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.
Quote from: Rune on October 28, 2014, 08:50:15 pmUnlike nubits we have total control on when to end this subsidy. The very second that shareholders deem it unprofitable to continue the subsidy, they will vote to end it.You guys are thinking in bitcoin terms, not in company terms. This would be a promotional marketing campaign, an investment meant to result in a higher payoff (through rapid influx of capital deposited in bitAssets). You are underestimating the massive advantage the promise of a real number will give people, rather than simply a promise of "it pays interest".I think it is a bad idea to simply dismiss it outright. It is better to discuss if and how it could be done profitably....but if we're able to naturally provide somewhere in the realm of 5% interest, none of this would be necessary...let's focus on getting the yield naturally.
Unlike nubits we have total control on when to end this subsidy. The very second that shareholders deem it unprofitable to continue the subsidy, they will vote to end it.You guys are thinking in bitcoin terms, not in company terms. This would be a promotional marketing campaign, an investment meant to result in a higher payoff (through rapid influx of capital deposited in bitAssets). You are underestimating the massive advantage the promise of a real number will give people, rather than simply a promise of "it pays interest".I think it is a bad idea to simply dismiss it outright. It is better to discuss if and how it could be done profitably.
this summer
What I get from this is that yield is not going to be around 5% then. Then what will it be, 2%? Then we should put that as the subsidy floor and advertise that. Any number is better than no number (which will always be assumed to be 0.001% like all other banks).
Just to be clear... I do not support this proposal in the slightest.
I agree. If we start doing this I would pull out and so would a lot of others. Yield is important but it's not like dilution itself is even popular within our own community and to do it specifically to provide yield is not worth it.
If we were to dilute in order to pay a higher interest rate, that would make Bitshares look like a scam to me. A ponzi, taking the funds of new investors (those who bought diluted shares) and paying it as interest to old investors.This is exactly what we dont want to do, imo.We need to increase real, legitimate, sustainable demand for bitUSD. Which is hopefully what the coming marketing campaign will do.
So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.5% isn't an outrageous amount of interest, but it is significant in this era of negative interest rates. I think being able to use concrete numbers will make it so much easier to make mainstream people curious. If it becomes trusted enough, I could see this becoming viral knowledge between cautious savers especially in China, with people rushing to put their life savings into it if they hear about it from people they already trust - the Chinese are fond of getting on trends about what the safest longterm investments are. Right now we're seeing a housing bubble pop, and it would be the perfect time for them to be introduced to a new safe investment.
So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.