0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Any updates on this? I would like to offer to help where I can. This would be a good place to offer to interview you and propagate this message to a broader audience. It could also be used by you to recruit talent/set bounties (if this would be helpful).
Quote from: delulo on January 15, 2014, 10:24:10 pmQuote from: domsch on January 14, 2014, 01:36:24 pmQuote from: delulo on January 14, 2014, 12:22:23 amTo form an opinion on this it would be interesting to know about when the bitshares p2p exchange will come. It would make sense to combine the fiat/IOU exchange with the p2p exchange if that is possible? That is what this idea is all about. A P2P exchange platform in the form of a DAC will be built on top of this. Therefor our ideology of privacy and decentralization is not lost and we can simultaneously work on both models: Fiat is there for reaching the masses, the DAC is there for getting them deeper into the ecosystem and spread our intentions.For all the other replies: I am going to work something out with an individual investors and will discuss this in detail with Dan how we will proceed once we have the platform launched and how we can use the AGS for a DAC-exchange. I will create a thread seeking help soon, but if anyone wants to join this please send me a private message with what you can help with!Is it technically / by definition possible to have a completely decentralized p2p exchange for fiat/crypto?i believe it is possible, eMunie is working on a decentralized fiat-->crypto exchange
Quote from: domsch on January 14, 2014, 01:36:24 pmQuote from: delulo on January 14, 2014, 12:22:23 amTo form an opinion on this it would be interesting to know about when the bitshares p2p exchange will come. It would make sense to combine the fiat/IOU exchange with the p2p exchange if that is possible? That is what this idea is all about. A P2P exchange platform in the form of a DAC will be built on top of this. Therefor our ideology of privacy and decentralization is not lost and we can simultaneously work on both models: Fiat is there for reaching the masses, the DAC is there for getting them deeper into the ecosystem and spread our intentions.For all the other replies: I am going to work something out with an individual investors and will discuss this in detail with Dan how we will proceed once we have the platform launched and how we can use the AGS for a DAC-exchange. I will create a thread seeking help soon, but if anyone wants to join this please send me a private message with what you can help with!Is it technically / by definition possible to have a completely decentralized p2p exchange for fiat/crypto?
Quote from: delulo on January 14, 2014, 12:22:23 amTo form an opinion on this it would be interesting to know about when the bitshares p2p exchange will come. It would make sense to combine the fiat/IOU exchange with the p2p exchange if that is possible? That is what this idea is all about. A P2P exchange platform in the form of a DAC will be built on top of this. Therefor our ideology of privacy and decentralization is not lost and we can simultaneously work on both models: Fiat is there for reaching the masses, the DAC is there for getting them deeper into the ecosystem and spread our intentions.For all the other replies: I am going to work something out with an individual investors and will discuss this in detail with Dan how we will proceed once we have the platform launched and how we can use the AGS for a DAC-exchange. I will create a thread seeking help soon, but if anyone wants to join this please send me a private message with what you can help with!
To form an opinion on this it would be interesting to know about when the bitshares p2p exchange will come. It would make sense to combine the fiat/IOU exchange with the p2p exchange if that is possible?
Wow, this would be very good. The trouble to change from protoshare to BTC and then to USD is a pain.
Quote from: domsch on January 14, 2014, 07:11:31 pmQuote from: Giga on January 14, 2014, 06:53:24 pmDomsch, how soon are you looking into deploying the exchange. Time is against us so I would assume an accelerated deployment process is part of the plan? Sent from my Nexus 4 using TapatalkThat is our plan. But usually plans never work out, so we need to improvise. I will try and get development started asap while working on the banking/licensing problem. But there is no set ETD right now.Quote from: domsch on January 14, 2014, 07:11:31 pmQuote from: Giga on January 14, 2014, 06:53:24 pmDomsch, how soon are you looking into deploying the exchange. Time is against us so I would assume an accelerated deployment process is part of the plan? Sent from my Nexus 4 using TapatalkThat is our plan. But usually plans never work out, so we need to improvise. I will try and get development started asap while working on the banking/licensing problem. But there is no set ETD right now.Great, thnx for the update. I'm glad ur taking on this project as it seems to me you've got the right vision in place. Wish you all the best and I'll keep watching this thread for updates.Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Giga on January 14, 2014, 06:53:24 pmDomsch, how soon are you looking into deploying the exchange. Time is against us so I would assume an accelerated deployment process is part of the plan? Sent from my Nexus 4 using TapatalkThat is our plan. But usually plans never work out, so we need to improvise. I will try and get development started asap while working on the banking/licensing problem. But there is no set ETD right now.
Domsch, how soon are you looking into deploying the exchange. Time is against us so I would assume an accelerated deployment process is part of the plan? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Compliance is a noble goal, but it can't be achieved without the absence or sacrifice of worthy values.Do not forget that we are talking about the establishment of disruptive technologies. It is interesting to see people feel it is possible to negotiate the legal and financial obstacles that are intended to block competitors. Compliance only lasts until an anointed agency changes the rules on you. You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot. None of us would have heard of Bitcoin if success depended on the ability to negotiate regulatory hurdles. Bitcoin runs full speed around the hurdles because it values the ideals of liberty more than the blessings that come from kissing the ring of those that write the rules.You are supposed to believe it is possible to disrupt established markets by playing by the rules, because otherwise you could not be stopped. The process uses your resources against you and ultimately helps your accepted master refine and enforce the rules by which you will comply. The vicious cycle ends when rules need to be made so oppressive (to restrain competition) that people finally reject the premise that they need to be ruled over. Positive change requires someone willing to avoid the obstacles to demonstrate what is possible. Freedom is when people act with knowledge that rule makers need you more than you need them and that the benefit of the rules is an illusion with fleeting value.Sell your conformance if you think it will benefit, but mind the cost and be mindful of the bigger picture. It seems possible now that this dream started with an absence of worthy values and therefore nothing would be lost.
"A global direct Fiat-DAC exchange handling all major (more than 3 or 4) fiat currencies is not needed and will not be profitable.Doing two trades (first your local fiat-BTC exchange, then a global BTC-DAC exchange) is cheaper. Economies of scale for fiat-crypto-exchanges require that there are as few competing exchanges as possible. Trading n fiat currencies directly against m altcoins/DACs requires n•m markets, going through bitcoin requires n+m markets. If 2(n+m)<n•m the narrower spreads of the large exchanges will make trading via the largest crypto-currency (i.e. Bitcoin) cheaper."
Why are all major commodities traded in USD only?
Why did Cryptsy roll back from having direct markets between all alts to having only BTC-alt-markets?
Why can Mt. Gox charge 5 % fees for cross-(fiat)-currency trades and get away with it?
Why are there so many BTC-altcoin exchanges but so few doing fiat-altcoin directly?
Quote from: delulo on January 14, 2014, 12:22:23 amTo form an opinion on this it would be interesting to know about when the bitshares p2p exchange will come. It would make sense to combine the fiat/IOU exchange with the p2p exchange if that is possible? It might make more sense and less risk to just use Ripple, but having an alternative to Ripple would be ideal.
Quote from: euzora on January 13, 2014, 09:36:19 pmI'll start with I know almost nothing...but...wouldn't a model similar to localbitcoins be easier to implement and more pliable to a decentralised structure? it could provide a single platform but with multiple competing escrow services...just a thoughtis not a very efficient method to trade...
I'll start with I know almost nothing...but...wouldn't a model similar to localbitcoins be easier to implement and more pliable to a decentralised structure? it could provide a single platform but with multiple competing escrow services...just a thought
Domsch, This seems to be your second proposal to Invictus; this being the first: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1578.0I personally applaud your spirit and creativity, but if the first proposal was to create an innovative and comprehensive marketing ideology that encompasses many aspects and would probably warrant a complete team to execute, how then one month later are you prepared to launch this much different venture that in essence is about a 180 degree difference in its nature (marketing to legal/regulatory)?Are you still working on the marketing plan from the link above? Do you have a separate team dedicated to it? Can you provide any evidence to your success in the areas of marketing and/or legal regulatory compliance?
Just to clarify, Is this a proposal to turn our $100k over to you to get a tool that will greatly increase the value and development of the DAC ecosystem that will also make us shareholders? If so, $100k sounds like a drop in the bucket weighed against the potential of this project. I'm ready to be all in with my support if Donsche can show us more substantial budgeting and greater evidence that his idea can come to fruition. Also, greater promise than 10% of ownership for AGS might persuade us who perceive this investment as riskier than standard DAC development.Can anyone counter with a proposal to create a DAC trading platform that is less controversial to us AGS/PTS investors?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If your VC can fund $7 million as you say, then there is little need for $100K from the AGS fund. AGS is supposed to be used to develop DACs. You have stated a plan to implement a DAC in 18 months, at that time AGS funding may be appropriate. Partnering with existing exchanges would probably be far more profitable for AGS holders and then using $100K to fund the development of integration with Open Transactions based exchange integration may be a more compelling and DECENTRALIZED solution. Also spending $100K for development of cross-chain trading and options trading / coordination systems that work with the block-chain provided hooks may provide more value. I really believe that your initial VC funding should get you to a deployed product and our $100K plus-up should be focused merely on integrating advanced features not available on other exchanges. You have our moral support, but to qualify for AGS funding I think you need to prove your ability to reach the same threshold of other USD/BTC exchanges. Once there we can begin working with you to take it one step further and give you a competitive edge over the competition.
Quote from: sumantso on January 12, 2014, 11:58:38 amQuote from: domsch on January 12, 2014, 11:56:19 amQuote from: sumantso on January 12, 2014, 11:35:14 amI followed and invested in Scharmbeck which is now in testing. It provides WDC/Fiat. They raised money by giving out shares in the company.If AGS fund is used for this initiative, we should get shares in the company.Which is what we intend to do. 20% of the profits (same as with a new DAC where 20% are given to PTS/AGS owners) will be put in a DAC Development Fund. The fund will be controlled by 1 Invictus member and 1 trusted community member.I was talking about a more direct stake at the individual level.If we are doing a fundraiser with several companies (or a few individuals) that is very possible. But how will we accomplish this (without Invictus directly representing AGS investors) when most of the investors of the AGS fund are not clearly identified or willing to be identified? As a stakeholder you are required to sign all the required papers and eventually go to board-meetings/vote in decision. I much rather prefer the 20% DAC Development Fund and perks (e.g. no trading fees, rewards, contests, bounties) and delegate part of the decision power to the community in a transparent and open way. Else our supposed agility and flexibility will be crippled by unnecessary formality and bureaucracy.How exactly did Scharmbeck handle the fundraiser? I know that no Kickstarter company has ever handed over shares, instead they focused on compensating investors through gifts or privileges. That is what we want to do as well.But I am definitely open for ideas and if a few individuals want to invest in this and join the company please approach me.
Quote from: domsch on January 12, 2014, 11:56:19 amQuote from: sumantso on January 12, 2014, 11:35:14 amI followed and invested in Scharmbeck which is now in testing. It provides WDC/Fiat. They raised money by giving out shares in the company.If AGS fund is used for this initiative, we should get shares in the company.Which is what we intend to do. 20% of the profits (same as with a new DAC where 20% are given to PTS/AGS owners) will be put in a DAC Development Fund. The fund will be controlled by 1 Invictus member and 1 trusted community member.I was talking about a more direct stake at the individual level.
Quote from: sumantso on January 12, 2014, 11:35:14 amI followed and invested in Scharmbeck which is now in testing. It provides WDC/Fiat. They raised money by giving out shares in the company.If AGS fund is used for this initiative, we should get shares in the company.Which is what we intend to do. 20% of the profits (same as with a new DAC where 20% are given to PTS/AGS owners) will be put in a DAC Development Fund. The fund will be controlled by 1 Invictus member and 1 trusted community member.
I followed and invested in Scharmbeck which is now in testing. It provides WDC/Fiat. They raised money by giving out shares in the company.If AGS fund is used for this initiative, we should get shares in the company.
What are your thoughts on having this Platform interface as a gateway with Ripple?
Quote from: Liberty on January 11, 2014, 08:05:38 pmQuote from: Pocket Sand on January 11, 2014, 06:40:39 pmCompliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant. Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.Any smart company or individual would act to avert legal harm and would not claim to be above a law. You are correct in that you do not know my familiarity with these companies. There was delight in the furthering of technologies that are beyond regulation. That is not to say that the companies ever acted to willfully violate any law. The draw to decentralized autonomous corporations is that they are decentralized autonomous corporations that can avoid oppressive regulations as necessary. I3 began with some lofty ideals too.I3 is a company that is creating both technologies and companies. Traditional companies (like I3 itself) are easily forced to comply. The technologies can be forced to comply to the extent that they are managed by an entity that can be controlled. I3 sold an ideal that is disruptive to the notion of how companies may be formed and regulated, but is implementing what is practical within the rules it must comply with. Rules get modified as necessary to change what disruption to established interests is practical. I3 is not beyond the law but can act where laws do not yet restrict.Everyone would agree that it is beneficial to have businesses that can act in compliance with laws. The question here is if the creator of the technology should be the one financing compliance for users of the technology. I doubt it is possible to spend enough to accomplish that without also sacrificing ideals.We are not sacrificing the ideals of Privacy and Decentralization of the entire ecosystem, for the advantages of being compliant to the law and legally operating. Think of us like this: We are currently building an entry to a cave. Our entry is easily accessible, visible and can be used by everyone. If our entry collapses and the passage is completely blocked the cave will still be accessible through other smaller but harder to access entries. If this project will be shut down by the government, for whatever reason, the DAC's and the ideology behind them will still live on. If Coinbase is shut down, Bitcoin will move on. Legal services are definitely not essential for this newly created space - but they are crucial add-ons to the crypto world that allow for a much faster adoption rate. They speed-up the process and give non-techies the chance to join a new and revolutionary project without the necessary requirements. Basically, they allow for ideas to spread and adopted at a much faster pace and they do a fair amount of educating of the userbase.The ideal solution would obviously be an anonymous, decentralized trading platform that gives everyone the chance to invest in new DAC's. We are not quite there yet and we need to work on a centralized solution that will help us accomplish that goal in the future. A decentralized and anonymous trading platform can and will be built on top of the proposed trading platform and we will definitely work on that.
Quote from: Pocket Sand on January 11, 2014, 06:40:39 pmCompliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant. Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.Any smart company or individual would act to avert legal harm and would not claim to be above a law. You are correct in that you do not know my familiarity with these companies. There was delight in the furthering of technologies that are beyond regulation. That is not to say that the companies ever acted to willfully violate any law. The draw to decentralized autonomous corporations is that they are decentralized autonomous corporations that can avoid oppressive regulations as necessary. I3 began with some lofty ideals too.I3 is a company that is creating both technologies and companies. Traditional companies (like I3 itself) are easily forced to comply. The technologies can be forced to comply to the extent that they are managed by an entity that can be controlled. I3 sold an ideal that is disruptive to the notion of how companies may be formed and regulated, but is implementing what is practical within the rules it must comply with. Rules get modified as necessary to change what disruption to established interests is practical. I3 is not beyond the law but can act where laws do not yet restrict.Everyone would agree that it is beneficial to have businesses that can act in compliance with laws. The question here is if the creator of the technology should be the one financing compliance for users of the technology. I doubt it is possible to spend enough to accomplish that without also sacrificing ideals.
Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant. Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.
Can you show us an initial budget for the angel shares funding?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 11, 2014, 06:38:45 pmCoinbase is doing fine because they have the backing of Andreesen Horowitz and the privileged-starts-only Silicon Valley Bank that isn't taking any more Bitcoin business right now (We checked, they're on "pause" right now even though we're a company that just sells sponsorships for Bitcoin). Coinbase just got another 25 millionUSD in venture, I'm not saying it's impossible but I am saying Invictus doesn't have anywhere near enough money, so it's a terribly inefficient way to spend it.What Coinbase has done with Andreesen Horowitz we will achieve with my VC/accelerator/incubator contacts. I'm waiting for Techstars (Accelerator program) to respond to my last email. They partner with SVB and there may be a possibility to still get banking done through SVB. Else we will try and take another route. Just don't draw this entire operation off because SVB has closed their doors for now. I will call a few other Start-up friendly banks on Monday, like Square 1. I will keep you posted on what they say.I actually think that this will be a useful way to invest Angelshares in an outside project that has potential to influence the output of Invictus' projects. What I ask for is enough money to bootstrap the initial operation (PTS<->Fiat trading platform and the incorporation), to get the required numbers on board in order to close a higher financing round to take on some of the bigger challenges.
Coinbase is doing fine because they have the backing of Andreesen Horowitz and the privileged-starts-only Silicon Valley Bank that isn't taking any more Bitcoin business right now (We checked, they're on "pause" right now even though we're a company that just sells sponsorships for Bitcoin). Coinbase just got another 25 millionUSD in venture, I'm not saying it's impossible but I am saying Invictus doesn't have anywhere near enough money, so it's a terribly inefficient way to spend it.
Quote from: Pocket Sand on January 11, 2014, 05:45:10 pmBitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept.Thank you for your arguments, but the companies you mention did not begin with compliance but came to it as rules were refined to include them. Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved. Those companies were able to avoid compliance long enough to acquire capital to become compliant with existing barriers to entry. These aberrations happened because they formed faster than the regulations could adapt. Use of Bitcoin is a rejection of the capital controls by state, and the state will do whatever is in their power to obstruct it. Non-compliant exchanges continue to be important. Bitcoin exists in spite of the regulations, not because of the regulations.
Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept.
Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 11, 2014, 06:09:09 pmQuote from: domsch on January 11, 2014, 06:04:20 pmIf we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible. Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licensesThe only problem with your plan is Mt.Gox spends a huge amount of money on lawyers and compliance professionals. You are assuming they're just bad actors, but that's not true. The problem is in an environment lacking solid rules, the best you can do with your compliance effort is to make a bet at what you think it'll be. That's crazy. You can try this however you'd like, I'm just saying please consult with a US attorney who knows the Bitcoin startup space before you commit to a business model that requires licenses in the US.That is also how Coinbase did it and still does it. They entered a grey area and are doing fine as of now, but they are trying to get everything sorted by getting their state MTB licenses. We will take a similar approach.Currently we are in talks with 3 lawyers from the US, Hong Kong and Germany. I'm still trying to work on that contingency plan mentioned on the first page of the thread and on a proper incorporation strategy that allows us to target the most prominent countries first while expanding to other countries. And we have also contacted several other attorneys from Singapore, UK and Australia to plan ahead and know what will be required. It should be interesting to hire our own General Counsel. Similar to known start-ups that have challenged laws: Airbnb(local hotel zoning laws), Uber (taxi licensing requirements), and Pinterest (posting copyrighted images). Obviously that is another long-term goal, but if this platform shows traction and we raise money from a VC I do think that there is a possibility on not only hoping for a better output on a hearing, but also actively fighting for it.Reference: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/04/why-startups-hire-their-own-lawyers/
Quote from: domsch on January 11, 2014, 06:04:20 pmIf we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible. Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licensesThe only problem with your plan is Mt.Gox spends a huge amount of money on lawyers and compliance professionals. You are assuming they're just bad actors, but that's not true. The problem is in an environment lacking solid rules, the best you can do with your compliance effort is to make a bet at what you think it'll be. That's crazy. You can try this however you'd like, I'm just saying please consult with a US attorney who knows the Bitcoin startup space before you commit to a business model that requires licenses in the US.
If we proceed and simply say "Fuck you USA" a la MtGox and don't comply with regulations we will soon see our accounts seized and operations halted. That is why I am for conducting this all within legal borders and try to acquire the licenses as soon as possible. Bitstamp right now simply works with international wire transfers to their accounts in the UK. (They are actually registered in the UK, but I think they operate from Slovenia). We intend to take a similar approach but are focusing on getting US Banking set-up and acquire the licenses as soon as possible. A huge problem could arise in which the US requests all trading platforms to be incorporated in the US, work with a US bank and get the required licenses. If we work on getting all this done prior such a hypothetical, but very likely, regulation, we will be ahead and trading would continue without any difficulties.And I need to emphasize this again: Initially we will be able to operate WITHOUT these licenses
Quote from: luckybit on January 11, 2014, 05:42:52 pmI'm with it. I think the key to getting community support is offering a good crowd funding bargain. If you're going to seek investment via crowd funding you have to offer some promise of a return on investment and that part is going to be difficult initially. Neo Bee seems to be doing a good job as a payment network and they were crowd funded so it's possible but it's hard.I think something like Bitshares really needs a fiat -> BTS exchange.Neo Bee is doing a good job because they are a full reserve bank. They are more solvent and traditional than the fractional reserve banks that regulations exist for. They bypassed most of the regulatory obstacles. The profits of a fractional reserve banking system had driven full reserve banking out of the market. Neo Bee will do well because they stand alone as people lose confidence in fractional reserve banking and the fiat that they are based upon.
I'm with it. I think the key to getting community support is offering a good crowd funding bargain. If you're going to seek investment via crowd funding you have to offer some promise of a return on investment and that part is going to be difficult initially. Neo Bee seems to be doing a good job as a payment network and they were crowd funded so it's possible but it's hard.I think something like Bitshares really needs a fiat -> BTS exchange.
I feel like eventually if bitshares are mainstays in the altcoin world, then one of the big exchanges bitpay/ coinbase will begin implementing it into their operations. However, I do see where this idea would be crucial 5 or 6 years down the line, just skeptical about its viability and benefits today.
Providing a solution, BTC Global has announced today what they call “Massive Parallel Licensing”. Last month we wrote about BTC Global and their ambitious plans for the future (Living in the Future Today). Centered around their Uruguay based exchange, BTC.UY, BTC Global is seeking to create a multi-service bitcoin company that includes merchant solutions, secure storage facilities, digital currency conversions, and consulting services. With its team situated around the world, BTC Global considers itself a ‘true’ distributed startup. Utilizing the same methodology of leveraging its team’s knowledge and resources from around the globe that it is using to operate BTC Global, the company wants to do the same thing for bitcoin regulation.Mauro Betschart, CEO & Co-Founder, BTC GlobalMauro Betschart, CEO & Co-Founder, BTC GlobalMassive Parallel Licensing (MPL) is a partnership program that is part franchising and part crowdsourcing, and which BTC Global believes will provide a solution to “regulatory issues in the United States and worldwide facing bitcoin”. In their prepared statement, BTC Global explained that “the highest hurdle for entrepreneurs interested in launching a Bitcoin exchange business is the significant international and local regulatory requirements.” They added that “it is estimated that an investment of over $10 million would be required to reach total legal compliance in all the U.S. 50 states alone.” To solve this problem, MPL will allow bitcoin operators to partner with BTC Global, and leverage each other’s regulatory infrastructure and resources.
I support this as a decentralized version that operates in whatever jurisdiction in the world is most advantageous to the purposes of the DAC. If you tell me you want to spend DAC money on licenses in the US, something has gone horribly awry and we are not appreciating the flexibility a DAC grants you for things like this.Think Bitstamp - Huge US customer base, in Slovenia
Quote from: Giga on January 11, 2014, 04:31:02 pmi understand in the united state getting appropriate licenses will be v expensive and exhaust I3 resources. I was also thinking maybe set it up outside the states, slovenia maybe a good option not sure about taxes though, im sure we can do some good research about the location if this idea receives serious backing.It is our intention to acquire the licenses as soon as possible. As I had mentioned in the update, we are working on obtaining the licenses right now through partnerships with companies that already possess them. By no means am I asking for $7m in bonds here and I3 to get us a CCO.The business will be incorporated in several locations so we can assure faster and cheaper trading. Think of it: ACH wire transfers (for the US) and SEPA (within the EU) are resolved mostly within a day and have little to no fees. International wire transfers can cost up to $35 and can take several days to resolve. Therefore it is in our focus to register the business initially in the US and EU. So think of this as Coinbase and Bitstamp combined - we are just more agile, faster and assure compliance with regulations.
i understand in the united state getting appropriate licenses will be v expensive and exhaust I3 resources. I was also thinking maybe set it up outside the states, slovenia maybe a good option not sure about taxes though, im sure we can do some good research about the location if this idea receives serious backing.
I worked on a lot of issues along these lines when i began laying ground work for some of my ideas, and i was always told that it seemed as though the authorities would be making an exception, which they never like to do. So, i have been working on a crafting the Articles of Decentralization, similar to Articles of Association which are used to define and govern how companies operate, If we have such a document then we have begun laying the foundation that Legalizes DACs. If we have Bitshares on Board as well as 3 other DACs based in different parts of the world we can then support the "international" part of it. We will then set out to create frameworks similar to how authorities regulate normal companies, but ours will keep in mind the decentralization and privacy parts. All this gives us a conversation point when we try to pitch our businesses to authorities and even when a bank does their KYC, we'll have structures recognizable for them to interact with. Some lucky guys in less restrictive countries will get ahead first and thier fame will help our cause in restrictive territories.
It should not be entirely AGS funded, though. Domsch's friends in VC, other investors, etc., should be used to fund a very high percentage of the project.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: luckybit on January 11, 2014, 11:01:48 amQuote from: AdamBLevine on January 11, 2014, 10:25:59 amI think a DAC platform makes a ton of sense for this niche, but trying to get these licenses is a bit of a killer. The process is arbitrary, subject to change at any time and expensive. I support a DAC platform for trading DACs but I think it should ignore licenses because it is not a structure intended to be constrained by such licenses.Consider that the goal isn't to attract trend setters and early adopters like us but to get to the masses. The masses require regulation, which requires licenses and following arbitrary rules. It's the only way to get fiat into the ecosystem.I think since the operation is centralized the main concern will be if it doesn't toe the line precisely then it will be shut down. How can you make it extremely difficult to shut down despite being centralized while also attracting the mainstream?I think we should take a unique approach to this problem. Perhaps some sort of franchising mechanism but I don't know.You misunderstand me. This is a practical concern, getting those licenses and going through the processes required to achieve regulatory permission is too expensive to undertake to the point of being Moot. Invictus could put all the money they've raised so far behind this and wait a year at least to see the result, which could still be "No".Quote from: Markus on January 11, 2014, 12:50:51 pm51 of the 52 licences you mentioned are for the US. Wouldn't it be easier to not be based there? Or start up somewhere else and try to get the US licences as a second step.I support this as a decentralized version that operates in whatever jurisdiction in the world is most advantageous to the purposes of the DAC. If you tell me you want to spend DAC money on licenses in the US, something has gone horribly awry and we are not appreciating the flexibility a DAC grants you for things like this.Think Bitstamp - Huge US customer base, in Slovenia
Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 11, 2014, 10:25:59 amI think a DAC platform makes a ton of sense for this niche, but trying to get these licenses is a bit of a killer. The process is arbitrary, subject to change at any time and expensive. I support a DAC platform for trading DACs but I think it should ignore licenses because it is not a structure intended to be constrained by such licenses.Consider that the goal isn't to attract trend setters and early adopters like us but to get to the masses. The masses require regulation, which requires licenses and following arbitrary rules. It's the only way to get fiat into the ecosystem.I think since the operation is centralized the main concern will be if it doesn't toe the line precisely then it will be shut down. How can you make it extremely difficult to shut down despite being centralized while also attracting the mainstream?I think we should take a unique approach to this problem. Perhaps some sort of franchising mechanism but I don't know.
I think a DAC platform makes a ton of sense for this niche, but trying to get these licenses is a bit of a killer. The process is arbitrary, subject to change at any time and expensive. I support a DAC platform for trading DACs but I think it should ignore licenses because it is not a structure intended to be constrained by such licenses.
51 of the 52 licences you mentioned are for the US. Wouldn't it be easier to not be based there? Or start up somewhere else and try to get the US licences as a second step.
Sounds like a good thing to have.How much funding would you want to have from the Angelshares? And when? What is the total capital needed?51 of the 52 licences you mentioned are for the US. Wouldn't it be easier to not be based there? Or start up somewhere else and try to get the US licences as a second step.
I think since the operation is centralized the main concern will be if it doesn't toe the line precisely then it will be shut down. How can you make it extremely difficult to shut down despite being decentralized while also attracting the mainstream?