BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 02:58:29 am
-
I would like to introduce a new, simplified, approach to implementing Dividends on a blockchain. As many astute economists have pointed out, destroying the currency and paying dividends have the same effect on your bottom line. In one case you end up with more units of a fixed supply, in the other case the units you have become more valuable. Despite the economic equivalence of these two actions there is a critical psychological difference. People are often unable to separate real return on capital from capital appreciation. There is also a huge difference in user experience between seeing the number of dollars they have go up due to 1% interest while ignoring the 5% inflation. They still 'feel' they got more.
This leads me to the following critical observation that all crypto-currencies are currently operating under the illusion that you have realized high gains when the reality is almost all coins have an inflation rate north of 10% per year. As a result people are paying taxes on imaginary gains because the gains were not adjusted for inflation. Just like we want the government to be 'honest' and tax people on their savings rather than hide the tax in inflation, all crypto-currencies should be honest and show the users' balance decrease by 10% per year as fees paid to miners.
The reason this has never been implemented is because 'implementing a tax' has been considered entirely too difficult and inefficient. I would now like to present a new approach to crypto-currencies that will simultaneously eliminate the inflation deception, enable dividends, and put an end to all crypto-currencies that think changing the money supply actually means something to the market. This change could easily be adopted by all Altcoins without having to change the blockchain at all.
Rather than considering the 'unit' of a currency to be individual shares, people should transact in 'Percent of Money Supply' and all balances should be represented as 'Percent of Money Supply'. As currency is created you see your balance shrinking due to inflation. When money is destroyed your see your balance increasing due to 'dividends'. You can shift the decimal on this percentage to create friendly numbers, but ultimately it is still a percentage. With a simple change to the user interface dividends can be implemented with ease.
If all block chains implemented this policy then the unit value on sites like http://coinmarketcap.com/ would be a meaningful way of comparing the coins. In the case of BitShares this eliminates a large amount of bookkeeping and simply changes the way the currency is entered or displayed by the user. Users get to see their dividends as their balance increases over time even though no coins are actually transferred to them.
In the case of Bitcoin users would be able to write of a 10% loss per year against their capital gains. I would like to officially proclaim that Bitcoin implements demurrage by charging people for holding a balance. It is currently hidden by inflation, but none the less the economic system of all coins to date have a hidden wealth tax in the name of security and are terribly inefficient. A future coin that is able to eliminate this inflation and 'tax' will have significantly more value.
Given this insight, many of our future block chains have become much easier to implement.
-
So what is the first DAC we should expect to see this in? I'm ready for some of these ideas to make their way into a PTS derived DAC :)
-
Perhaps it would be a good idea to show a day-to-day and month-to-month % change. I don't think I would really appreciate very minor changes in my holdings relative to the entire user-base, but if the interface pointed out the specific change whether good or bad would be valuable.
-
Perhaps it would be a good idea to show a day-to-day and month-to-month % change. I don't think I would really appreciate very minor changes in my holdings relative to the entire user-base, but if the interface pointed out the specific change whether good or bad would be valuable.
I think the interface would show your gains (or losses) over a regular interval. So you would see your balance + todays gain. Then you would see 'current APR'.
-
So what is the first DAC we should expect to see this in? I'm ready for some of these ideas to make their way into a PTS derived DAC :)
Every DAC we do will implement this. This particular feature just saved me a ton of development time.
-
So let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?
-
People may lack of knowlege you posted in this thread, so I suggest to give people choise to switch balance viewes on user interface, and teatch user there.
The manner of people are hard to change, and peole may be confused by the new strategy, so UI might be the key to succuss.
It's great to just point this simple true idea, missunderstood by people. And it's straightforward and simple mathematically.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
-
Besides, how will trade be infulenced? If to show as percentages, the order list can not easily adjust, it may not easy for the market to accept it.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
-
So let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?
No, transaction fees still exist because there is limited space in the block chain and these fees will 'destroy' the currency.
New blocks are created by all full nodes and anyone with a financial interest in the network will pick the largest value transactions with the highest fees (which are destroyed and thus show up as dividends).
If you do not include transactions in a block then your mining difficulty will be higher (proof-of-stake) so those blocks will never make it into the chain.
-
Besides, how will trade be infulenced? If to show as percentages, the order list can not easily adjust, it may not easy for the market to accept it.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
This is a good consideration. Ultimately there are still shares and a money supply under the hood. The rate of change in the money supply would make the change inconsequential for the order book. What would you do with your 'dividends' earned while you had an open order? Markets would function at the 'share level' and the display would just show you the percentage level. Thus dividends will accrue to your bids and asks equally and thus be irrelevant.
-
People may lack of knowlege you posted in this thread, so I suggest to give people choise to switch balance viewes on user interface, and teatch user there.
The manner of people are hard to change, and peole may be confused by the new strategy, so UI might be the key to succuss.
It's great to just point this simple true idea, missunderstood by people. And it's straightforward and simple mathematically.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
When people think of Bitcoin they think of a unit of something. When they think of this system it is still a unit of something and will not be displayed as 'percentages'. They will just see that they gain or lose some of their balance very day due to dividends or mining tax. They will simply call them shares.
I do think that a flexible GUI would be a nice alternative for existing crypto-currencies for people who want to deduct inflationary gains from their taxes. Eventually people may start trading in these percentage units rather than bitcoins... but it is like the debate between BTC and mBTC vs %BTC and people will have a hard time adjusting for old DACs. New DACs how ever it will just be viewed as the money supply.
-
Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable format
I dunno, if you can nail this it will be good but it could be very confusing and doesn't really feel like dividends in the same way although I know it is intellectually.
-
Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable format
I dunno, if you can nail this it will be good but it could be very confusing and doesn't really feel like dividends in the same way although I know it is intellectually.
There is a difference between implementation and user experience. Users will experience this just like actual dividends, this just simplifies my under-the-hood implementation.
-
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
-
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix.
For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflation.
-
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix.
For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflati
Perhaps you could use this in another way. Call them StableShares or CentralShares. Basically you have an algorithm or voting board that can create or destroy coins. The idea is to keep one share equal to some amount of agreed spending power. If we want move forward in the Cryptocurrency movement, we need to stop using USD as a crutch, and instead use our own analog.
Perhaps you don't actually need a coin. Perhaps this could be reduced to an index. Although the DAC idea would of course fund itself.
-
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix.
For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflati
Perhaps you could use this in another way. Call them StableShares or CentralShares. Basically you have an algorithm or voting board that can create or destroy coins. The idea is to keep one share equal to some amount of agreed spending power. If we want move forward in the Cryptocurrency movement, we need to stop using USD as a crutch, and instead use our own analog.
Perhaps you don't actually need a coin. Perhaps this could be reduced to an index. Although the DAC idea would of course fund itself.
Pricing things relative to a known stable quantity, perhaps OZ of gold helps. BitShares handles the pegging against a known value so no point in creating a new system.
-
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix.
For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflati
Perhaps you could use this in another way. Call them StableShares or CentralShares. Basically you have an algorithm or voting board that can create or destroy coins. The idea is to keep one share equal to some amount of agreed spending power. If we want move forward in the Cryptocurrency movement, we need to stop using USD as a crutch, and instead use our own analog.
Perhaps you don't actually need a coin. Perhaps this could be reduced to an index. Although the DAC idea would of course fund itself.
Pricing things relative to a known stable quantity, perhaps OZ of gold helps. BitShares handles the pegging against a known value so no point in creating a new system.
Basically just Bitshares v0.1, just because of ease of implementation. I say fill the market gap till BitShares arrives.
-
So, is this just a way to help users more easily visualize their gains from dividends, and their losses from inflation? As well as make things easier for you to code?
-
So, is this just a way to help users more easily visualize their gains from dividends, and their losses from inflation? As well as make things easier for you to code?
Yup.
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation :)
All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
-
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation :)
All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
This is true and the same thing could be said for gold as well, the supply also expands. However, too low of a supply wouldn't be meaningful to anyone. What if there was only 1kg of gold for the whole world?
-
Divisibility is more important than supply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Divisibility is more important than supply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Yes, but people are more used to dealing with large amounts of money than very small units.
-
Inflation in Bitcoin is not perceived because the real value of the currency in relation to goods and other currencies is increasing very fast on average. From a point of view of a today user, s/he only sees that his/her coins gain in value over time, perceiving that as a fake deflation.
Infation is only a problem when you reach certain stability in real market shares, or when the decline starts. For example, what is happening to the dollar right now.
In my opinion, the ideal currency is the one which is able to expand/shrink (inflate itself by increasing/decreasing money supply) in the same ratio as market/exchange adoption does happen. So if you have 1 dollar today and are able to buy 1kg of apples, the ideal is that 20 years from now you can also buy 1kg of apples with 1 dollar.
This stability has many advantages. The first one being able to take loans and pay in a predictable way.
Do you imagine taking a loan today in bitcoins at $1000, and having to pay it when it is at $100,000? You would fail to pay, and this happens because money supply (inflation) is just not enough to support the incredible demand.
But how to implement this in a virtual currency? It is a problem if we don't want centralization, and centralization is precisely the biggest problem we want to avoid, for political reasons.
-
In this way, bta can't get any dividends.
-
Anyway, at least for some DACs, we have here a good opportunity to implement automatic demurrage based on actual, real demands.
For example, with WeTube we can implement a fixed ratio Gigabyte/WeCoins. If we always consider that sharing 1Gb will generate 1 WeCoin, inflation will always satisfy demand and we will not see what is happening with all altcoins today.
The original good parts of any demurrage system is that the ratio between man-working-hours and money earned is fixed, so the system could be, in theory, very stable. Disadvantages are that it mostly kills speculation, but some will argue that that is a good thing.
I'd like to read opinions of economists about this option.
-
Inflation in Bitcoin is not perceived because the real value of the currency in relation to goods and other currencies is increasing very fast on average. From a point of view of a today user, s/he only sees that his/her coins gain in value over time, perceiving that as a fake deflation.
Infation is only a problem when you reach certain stability in real market shares, or when the decline starts. For example, what is happening to the dollar right now.
In my opinion, the ideal currency is the one which is able to expand/shrink (inflate itself by increasing/decreasing money supply) in the same ratio as market/exchange adoption does happen. So if you have 1 dollar today and are able to buy 1kg of apples, the ideal is that 20 years from now you can also buy 1kg of apples with 1 dollar.
This stability has many advantages. The first one being able to take loans and pay in a predictable way.
Do you imagine taking a loan today in bitcoins at $1000, and having to pay it when it is at $100,000? You would fail to pay, and this happens because money supply (inflation) is just not enough to support the incredible demand.
But how to implement this in a virtual currency? It is a problem if we don't want centralization, and centralization is precisely the biggest problem we want to avoid, for political reasons.
BitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner.
-
Inflation in Bitcoin is not perceived because the real value of the currency in relation to goods and other currencies is increasing very fast on average. From a point of view of a today user, s/he only sees that his/her coins gain in value over time, perceiving that as a fake deflation.
Infation is only a problem when you reach certain stability in real market shares, or when the decline starts. For example, what is happening to the dollar right now.
In my opinion, the ideal currency is the one which is able to expand/shrink (inflate itself by increasing/decreasing money supply) in the same ratio as market/exchange adoption does happen. So if you have 1 dollar today and are able to buy 1kg of apples, the ideal is that 20 years from now you can also buy 1kg of apples with 1 dollar.
This stability has many advantages. The first one being able to take loans and pay in a predictable way.
Do you imagine taking a loan today in bitcoins at $1000, and having to pay it when it is at $100,000? You would fail to pay, and this happens because money supply (inflation) is just not enough to support the incredible demand.
But how to implement this in a virtual currency? It is a problem if we don't want centralization, and centralization is precisely the biggest problem we want to avoid, for political reasons.
If you regard bts as a kind of META-currency more than altcoin, you can ignore this disadvantage. (What? META-currency? Am I creating concepts around again? )
But, can bitAssets gain dividends? And, should they? ::)
-
So let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?
No, transaction fees still exist because there is limited space in the block chain and these fees will 'destroy' the currency.
New blocks are created by all full nodes and anyone with a financial interest in the network will pick the largest value transactions with the highest fees (which are destroyed and thus show up as dividends).
If you do not include transactions in a block then your mining difficulty will be higher (proof-of-stake) so those blocks will never make it into the chain.
These ideas are briliant and have given me something to think about.
It actually makes a lot of sense if the transaction fees result in being destroyed because it solves a lot of potential problems.
Rather than considering the 'unit' of a currency to be individual shares, people should transact in 'Percent of Money Supply' and all balances should be represented as 'Percent of Money Supply'. As currency is created you see your balance shrinking due to inflation. When money is destroyed your see your balance increasing due to 'dividends'. You can shift the decimal on this percentage to create friendly numbers, but ultimately it is still a percentage. With a simple change to the user interface dividends can be implemented with ease.
This is how I internally think about it anyway. But I never considered it could be implemented as part of the interface. What truly matters for the protoshare owner is the percentage they have of the total money supply. The numbers or units of account are not always as accurate and the term dividend could generate all kinds of confusion so I think this idea you propose might eliminate the confusion while also providing more accurate information.
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
People believe Bitcoin is deflationary when it's really not. It's inflationary, but at a much much lower rate than the dollar so compared to the dollar it is deflationary.
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation :)
All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
I don`t understand why you say there is inflation in BTC, BTC is coin other than the shares of all BTC, 10000 BTC only can buy pizza four years ago ,but now 1BTC maybe can buy 100 pizza or more , it is deflation.
if the inflation you say is ?
1BTC is 1/2,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 2,000,000 ) ,1BTC is 1/12,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 12,000,000 now)
-
BitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner.
Sure, it is good for speculators, but not for real investors.
Imagine that around 70% of all transactions in our decentralized bank happens between Bitcoin and Bitshares. That could be perfectly the case because most people will enter with Bitcoins in order to obtain any other currency, or take loans in BitBTC.
It will happen the same that is happening in Wall ST right now. Because around 60% of all transactions in the world are made in dollars, when the dollar goes up and down, it affects secundary currencies that haven't got the strength to trade against anything which is not the dollar. Example: most currencies in South América trade against the dollar for importation/exportation. If the dollar goes down, they go down too.
Now take our situation: because in our market Bitcoin will be predominant, Bitshares will be drawn at the mercy of Bitcoin. And this has huge implications, specially for DACs, which will all of them be in a similar situation as the South American countries in regard to USA.
So I think that Bitshares will only help to make more secure trades to speculators, but will not help very much DACs, at least while the monopoly of Bitcoin continues, or any other show up.
Think about it.
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation :)
All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
I don`t understand why you say there is inflation in BTC, BTC is coin other than the shares of all BTC, 10000 BTC only can buy pizza four years ago ,but now 1BTC maybe can buy 100 pizza or more , it is deflation.
if the inflation you say is ?
1BTC is 1/2,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 2,000,000 ) ,1BTC is 1/12,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 12,000,000 now)
You are not understanding what inflation is. Inflation is just the increase in money supply. Period.
Because Bitcoin is still mined, it is inflationary. It will cease to inflate at some point, but not right now.
What you really mean is that Bitcoin increases its VALUE at a much higher rate that its inflation.
So you should separate the concepts of value and inflation, they are not the same.
-
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.
If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).
If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation :)
All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
I don`t understand why you say there is inflation in BTC, BTC is coin other than the shares of all BTC, 10000 BTC only can buy pizza four years ago ,but now 1BTC maybe can buy 100 pizza or more , it is deflation.
if the inflation you say is ?
1BTC is 1/2,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 2,000,000 ) ,1BTC is 1/12,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 12,000,000 now)
You are not understanding what inflation is. Inflation is just the increase in money supply. Period.
Because Bitcoin is still mined, it is inflationary. It will cease to inflate at some point, but not right now.
What you really mean is that Bitcoin increases its VALUE at a much higher rate that its inflation.
So you should separate the concepts of value and inflation, they are not the same.
maybe we have different concepts of inflation ,
-
maybe we have different concepts of inflation ,
No, it might be just a misunderstanding.
There is price inflation and money inflation.
We are talking here about money inflation.
Imagine a world in which there is only Bitcoin, so prices are only relative to Bitcoins. By mining, you augment the money supply, so inflation of both prices and money happens.
Today, because Bitcoin is measured against bigger currencies and demand is so high, it happens an apparently paradoxical situation: the currency is inflating while the prices are deflating. Weird, eh?
-
BitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner.
Sure, it is good for speculators, but not for real investors.
Imagine that around 70% of all transactions in our decentralized bank happens between Bitcoin and Bitshares. That could be perfectly the case because most people will enter with Bitcoins in order to obtain any other currency, or take loans in BitBTC.
You're making a lot of assumptions.
1. Nothing stops anyone from selling Bitshares directly for USD. There is no rule that people have to trade BTC or that everyone with BTS will want BTC. Some will want to cash out for USD. Some will want LTC or anything else.
2. Bitcoin buying power increases even while supply increases but if supply increases then it's inflationary even if buying power increases relative to the dollar which is much more inflationary. The buying power of the dollar is decreasing faster than the buying power of the .
It will happen the same that is happening in Wall ST right now. Because around 60% of all transactions in the world are made in dollars, when the dollar goes up and down, it affects secundary currencies that haven't got the strength to trade against anything which is not the dollar. Example: most currencies in South América trade against the dollar for importation/exportation. If the dollar goes down, they go down too.
The political currencies have to deal with that. These new currencies are decentralized and you don't know which one people will want but I highly doubt Bitcoin will remain in top demand. It's not like the dollar which could remain in top demand by force.
-
The political currencies have to deal with that. These new currencies are decentralized and you don't know which one people will want but I highly doubt Bitcoin will remain in top demand. It's not like the dollar which could remain in top demand by force.
Bitcoin can't stay in top demand by force, but it can stay up through inertia.
-
I think that this idea doesn't reduce the implementation complexity; it merely moves the complexity to the part of the code that deals with short sales.
Traditional investment brokerages charge interest to people who short stocks.
I thought from reading the whitepaper that the BitShares equivalent is implemented by denying the dividends from collateral to short sellers. And I also thought this was not an optional feature, but an important market mechanism to maintain price stability, since any downward price movement will cause existing short positions to want to buy, covering the short and taking the profit, and possibly (but not necessarily) enter a new short position with less collateral.
So with Dividends 2.0, what would fulfill this role?
To put it a different way, a simple UI change suffices when the dividends are being delivered "fairly" to everyone who owns BTS. But it's not obvious what should happen with short sellers.
Also, if transaction fees are destroyed instead of uniformly distributed, won't that eventually interfere with divisibility?
-
If you charge interest to short, the next day someone is going to fork the project and offer a "free interest" version that everybody will prefer.
-
If you charge interest to short, the next day someone is going to fork the project and offer a "free interest" version that everybody will prefer.
You aren't directly charged interest to short, but you do lose the rights to the dividends on your collateral
-
If you charge interest to short, the next day someone is going to fork the project and offer a "free interest" version that everybody will prefer.
You aren't directly charged interest to short, but you do lose the rights to the dividends on your collateral
Would everyone prefer it? I am sure the savers (those holding BitUSD) would want interest on their savings and to compensate them for the risks.
-
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.
I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.
It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.
Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
-
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.
I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.
It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.
Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.
-
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.
I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.
It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.
Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.
So your bitshares will grow only your % ownership of the DAC will change?
-
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.
I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.
It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.
Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.
So your bitshares will grow only your % ownership of the DAC will change?
A BitShare is a percent ownership of the DAC... which will grow.
-
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.
I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.
It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.
Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.
So your bitshares will grow only your % ownership of the DAC will change?
A BitShare is a percent ownership of the DAC... which will grow.
your the main brain and driving force here, if you think its the way forward then go for it. Like i already said the quicker you get to market with the first DAC the better.
-
I still think dividends should be implemented. Consider two subsets of users:
(a) Internet savvy crypto-anarchists and economics nerds
(b) Ordinary people who just want to buy and sell stuff online
Everything I've read about Bitshares suggests that, while (a) will be an important part of the userbase for Bitshares (or any new altcoin that launches in the near future), we want to eventually break into (b). And, while some subset of the users in (a) may well care more about inflation honesty, the people in market (b) really get more excited by things like "earn better interest than any bank will pay!" and "a piece of the action for every transaction!"
An individual user might theoretically be interested in the purchasing power of their money. But this depends on more than the total amount of coins that have been created -- it's a dynamic equilibrium affected by the velocity of money, hoarders that keep coins for long periods of time and/or don't trade on the markets you care about, and the total amount of goods and services being exchanged. Unlike the total number of coins that have ever been minted, the purchasing power of money is not something that could be automatically computed by the network.
And besides, there's a BitAsset for that :) -- users who care can just convert their money to BitUSD (or later we might have some asset that's pegged to a basket of goods or something).
-
BitShares will pay dividends... this thread is just about simplified implementation, user experience will be the same. They will see their balance go up over time.
-
In order to appease both sides, why not display both the actual money supply and the number of coins?
I am having difficulty wrapping my head around buying something for X%.
-
In order to appease both sides, why not display both the actual money supply and the number of coins?
I am having difficulty wrapping my head around buying something for X%.
You will not have to think in terms of X% you will just see X BTS... from the user's perspective it is just a number. The only place shares matter is under the hood, but that is an implementation detail.
-
Every entrepreneur or investor knows how to do the math. However, not everyone knows how to calculate interest and dividends. To be able to make good financial decisions, we need to know the difference between simple and compound interest, and how to calculate each. And for those seeking to invest, the same can be said of dividends. Learn more: Calculating interest and dividends (https://www.matchfinancial.com/application/).
-
Many are having a hard time solving math problems. Not everybody loves math. But, we all know that we always use it in our daily living, especially when it comes to investment. Therefore, we need to know the difference between simple and compound interest, and how to compute each. Likewise, those seeking to invest need to know how to calculate dividend returns. Read more: Calculating interest and dividends (https://www.matchfinancial.com/application/).