nasdaq to use bitcoin technology

[cylonmaker2053]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry

No.  The purpose of a blockchain is decentralization in which no single entity has control over what is recorded or how it is recorded and consensus has to be reached for most all decisions.  You can achieve information symmetry with a distributed database, but not consensus.  Why even coin the term "blockchain" in the first place if you are just going to use a centralized distributed database, which is nothing new and has been around for decades?

while i absolutely personally agree that that is the best use of blockchains, the tech sure can be used by private entities. as to why firms might adopt blockchains if they don't enable external commits ...that's a good question and i'm sure we'll see in the coming years whether there are any real economic reasons. some may adopt blockchains just bc they're the cool new buzzword, others might find some feature advantages, or there could be organizational efficiencies in enabling internal commits but restricting external ones ...creating a sort of private consensus mechanism shared amongst organizations. who knows...time and market evolution will tell.

[cylonmaker2053]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

or simply to be able to extract rent from all transactions and assets on their turf, like any other gang.

So won't companies that list in safe & tax haven jurisdictions on a globally accessible, effectively decentralised and very private blockchain make them obsolete, because of the savings to companies and their shareholders in the form of reduced taxes/rent?

yes, i think jurisdictional safe havens + globally accessible DAC capabilities will ultimately give a sustainable competitive advantage to firms locating outside of gang territories. the War on Drugs and War on Terror have largely cartelized so much of the business world, justifying government collusion to eliminate tax havens and financial privacy; blockchain tech & emerging DACs could potentially reverse that trend.

[donkeypong]

I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

If NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.

Which part of your assertion is bad for us. Exchanges, central securities depositories and central counterparties can use the blockchain to make their operations more efficient transparent and less risky. I want the broader financial system to gain from this technology if its centralized or not. And if you don't like the restrictions exchanges put on their markets you don't have to trade in them. Its really that simple.

I actually agree with you. My scenario above was just that, a scenario, for better or for worse. Not everyone would be happy with it. But on balance, I'd take the deal also, because I think it would make the world better.

[Helikopterben]

@Helicopterben let's agree to disagree. I can't really conced any of my points if you don't see the logic

Fair enough

[Empirical1.2]

@helikopterben, I largely agree with you

It often happens still today in Africa, the ME & even Eastern Europe that you have military coups or extremist governments temporarily in power that dispossess segments of the population.

Trying to retro-actively discern which property sales were legitimate under a central authority controlled blockchain would be a fool's errand because they would have sanctioned all of their activities as legal and legitimate at the time. However on an effectively decentralised blockchain, forced property sales/confiscations during that period by governments could be recorded as such.

The restitution of nazi confiscated or stolen property still continues to this day, but the process would have been made infinitely easier with a decentralised blockchain on which the original owners obviously wouldn't have given their consent for the sale/transfer.

So whether for the local populations themselves or too attract global investors, it's likely that we'll see the free market choosing decentralised blockchains over central authority controlled ones for long term property rights over time.

[clout]

@Helicopterben let's agree to disagree. I can't really conced any of my points if you don't see the logic

[Helikopterben]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry

No.  The purpose of a blockchain is decentralization in which no single entity has control over what is recorded or how it is recorded and consensus has to be reached for most all decisions.  You can achieve information symmetry with a distributed database, but not consensus.  Why even coin the term "blockchain" in the first place if you are just going to use a centralized distributed database, which is nothing new and has been around for decades?

I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol.

This won't work.  Transparency alone won't ensure accountability.  Transparency and consensus with other parties involved is required for true accountability. 

In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

I think you are to short-sighted.  The political landscape is due for as much disruption as the financial landscape, and the bulk of disruption has yet to occur.  The world may look vastly different in the coming decades and that includes disruption of government, disruption of national boudaries, disruption of property rights, disruption of law, and disruption of the way we even think about finance and money.  Legacy fiat monetary systems and markets may be rendered completely obsolete. IMO, we are about to embark on the broadest and most encompassing wave of the internet and there are many changes that we just wont be able to predict.  The world will look vastly different in 20 years.

[Empirical1.2]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

or simply to be able to extract rent from all transactions and assets on their turf, like any other gang.

So won't companies that list in safe & tax haven jurisdictions on a globally accessible, effectively decentralised and very private blockchain make them obsolete, because of the savings to companies and their shareholders in the form of reduced taxes/rent?

[cylonmaker2053]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

or simply to be able to extract rent from all transactions and assets on their turf, like any other gang.

[clout]

@Helikopterben The premise of a blockchain is not decentralization it is information symmetry, which allows for participants in the network to more efficiently work together and manage risks. I don't think you understand how our financial system works. The government dictates property rights and there is no way around that particularly in the information age where most property is digitally recorded. I don't care if there is a central authority that controls the blockchain so long as the inherent transparency of the blockchain ensures that entity is accountable for their breach of protocol. In the end you're vision is not practical by any measure. So long as we have national governments we won't see it play out since governments will always seek to control the flow of capital within their borders, for security and policy reasons.

[cylonmaker2053]

First of all, it's impossible for a centralized entity to create its OWN blockchain.  That is contradictory.  They would just end up with a database.  Maybe a distributed database, but not a fully decentralized database, a.k.a blockchain.  Perhaps they could create a ledger distributed among multiple exchanges, banks, and/or financial institutions in which all entities compete among each other to validate transactions and change parameters on the network, but it's difficult to tell how decentralized such a system would be.  Likely it would be even more centralized than ripple.  It almost surely would not be opt-in... we could call it a psuedo-blockchain, but not a real blockchain such as bitshares or bitcoin.  The best chains will be the ones that started from a grassroots effort and grew organically over time.  Chains started and maintained by the establishment will most likely not keep end user interests in mind with regards to monetary inflation, theft, confiscation, ect.  In other words, they will be more centralized and consequently less secure.  Their best bet is to adapt to the technology already being produced, and many of them are doing just that.

My grand vision would be for exchanges such as the nasdaq to replace their backend databases with the bitshares blockchain, doing so in a way that users retain control of their assets at all times, even when in trade or under contract.  I imagine we are quite a ways off from this becoming a reality.

i think your definition of 'blockchain' is too restrictive. a blockchain is just a distributed database with commit rules for appending blocks of data. there's nothing saying the distribution of the database need be outside of a single organization. whether the security of such a scheme is higher or lower than what we think of today with cryptocurrencies will be debatable for some time, and i think it safe to assume that the banking cartel will prefer opacity and private restrictions to commits over an open system...just in their nature.

nonetheless, i love your grand vision and obviously support it

[cylonmaker2053]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds.

good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.

You should read flash boys. While the book is mostly about the practices of HFTs, it provides pretty good insight on the disconnect between financial professionals and the software engineers that create and operate the platforms they use. I don't think the ppl at these companies that make the decisions have any idea how to technically integrate blockchain solutions into their business model.

The thing about the block chain is that the concept of a public database is antithetical to MO of a competitive company or a fiduciary institution. The blockchains not a big priority for them even if they make the claim that they think the underlying tech of bitcoin can have widespread implications for the financial system.

Flash Boys is a good story, but still just a story filtered through available information and lens of the author. money can always buy a lot of really smart people, so there are no real barriers for banks or other institutions adopting their own blockchains. hell, anyone can hire CNX to do it for them if they wanted.

but yeah, i don't think any of this is a big priority for most financial institutions. that prob won't come for awhile, or until we start taking away a nontrivial amount of their business.

[Helikopterben]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds.

good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.

First of all, it's impossible for a centralized entity to create its OWN blockchain.  That is contradictory.  They would just end up with a database.  Maybe a distributed database, but not a fully decentralized database, a.k.a blockchain.  Perhaps they could create a ledger distributed among multiple exchanges, banks, and/or financial institutions in which all entities compete among each other to validate transactions and change parameters on the network, but it's difficult to tell how decentralized such a system would be.  Likely it would be even more centralized than ripple.  It almost surely would not be opt-in... we could call it a psuedo-blockchain, but not a real blockchain such as bitshares or bitcoin.  The best chains will be the ones that started from a grassroots effort and grew organically over time.  Chains started and maintained by the establishment will most likely not keep end user interests in mind with regards to monetary inflation, theft, confiscation, ect.  In other words, they will be more centralized and consequently less secure.  Their best bet is to adapt to the technology already being produced, and many of them are doing just that.

My grand vision would be for exchanges such as the nasdaq to replace their backend databases with the bitshares blockchain, doing so in a way that users retain control of their assets at all times, even when in trade or under contract.  I imagine we are quite a ways off from this becoming a reality. 

[clout]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds.

good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.

You should read flash boys. While the book is mostly about the practices of HFTs, it provides pretty good insight on the disconnect between financial professionals and the software engineers that create and operate the platforms they use. I don't think the ppl at these companies that make the decisions have any idea how to technically integrate blockchain solutions into their business model.

The thing about the block chain is that the concept of a public database is antithetical to MO of a competitive company or a fiduciary institution. The blockchains not a big priority for them even if they make the claim that they think the underlying tech of bitcoin can have widespread implications for the financial system.

[clout]

I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

If NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.

Which part of your assertion is bad for us. Exchanges, central securities depositories and central counterparties can use the blockchain to make their operations more efficient transparent and less risky. I want the broader financial system to gain from this technology if its centralized or not. And if you don't like the restrictions exchanges put on their markets you don't have to trade in them. Its really that simple.

[cylonmaker2053]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds.

good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.

[donkeypong]

I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

If NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.

[Ander]

but a major financial institution could replicate our work quickly for < $1M dev budget, which is petty cash in that world.

No way they could do it nearly that cheap.

[clout]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

[cylonmaker2053]

We tried marketing bitusd. That didn't really work... There are a variety of alternatives to bitusd. The fact that it is collateralized by bts given the current market sentiment make it just as attractive as an IOU from an exchange or a ripple gateway.

The crypto community doesnt appreciate the bitshares consensus mechanism because they think its centralized. Exchanges don't care about the centralized vs decentralized debate. They only care about efficiency. We have the most efficient, robust and regulatory compliant block chain. Shouldn't we leverage that to gain partnerships?

Ripple is the second largest crypto by marketcap. That's not because the crypto community endorses them its because financial institutions endorse them. CME group has a minority stake in ripple. I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

true, if a major exchange wanted to invest that'd be awesome and there's no way i'd be opposed; i just think exchanges have incentive to dev their own versions of Bitshares. we're lucky to have a first mover advantage, but a major financial institution could replicate our work quickly for < $1M dev budget, which is petty cash in that world.

also, exchanges would def want to be closed systems for compliance reasons and would likely keep everything proprietary for competitive advantage. the USSA gov certainly isn't about to allow financial institutions to enable unbounded p2p trades and transfers, which is what joining BTS would mean. 

i also don't think bitUSD has come anywhere close to its potential; building businesses and apps around it could make it a huge success.

[clout]

We tried marketing bitusd. That didn't really work... There are a variety of alternatives to bitusd. The fact that it is collateralized by bts given the current market sentiment make it just as attractive as an IOU from an exchange or a ripple gateway.

The crypto community doesnt appreciate the bitshares consensus mechanism because they think its centralized. Exchanges don't care about the centralized vs decentralized debate. They only care about efficiency. We have the most efficient, robust and regulatory compliant block chain. Shouldn't we leverage that to gain partnerships?

Ripple is the second largest crypto by marketcap. That's not because the crypto community endorses them its because financial institutions endorse them. CME group has a minority stake in ripple. I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

[cylonmaker2053]

@Akado The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry. There are myriad barriers to entry and partnerships with banks and exchanges are paramount. I really don't think any industry need the blockchain more than the exchange industry. We are already better than nasdaq by creating a product that consolidates the entire trade workflow but in order for thus to get off the ground we need to be registered as an ECN or MTF. We need to have connections with broker dealers. We need to have connections with market makers. In general we need to stop thinking crypto and start thinking industrial.

yeah, maybe sometime down the road. just successfully marketing bitUSD could make Bitshares the most heavily capitalized crypto. i'm all for keeping things simple and making that one market a massive success, then naturally branching out to fulfill some of the other potential Bitshares has to offer.

[clout]

@Akado The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry. There are myriad barriers to entry and partnerships with banks and exchanges are paramount. I really don't think any industry need the blockchain more than the exchange industry. We are already better than nasdaq by creating a product that consolidates the entire trade workflow but in order for thus to get off the ground we need to be registered as an ECN or MTF. We need to have connections with broker dealers. We need to have connections with market makers. In general we need to stop thinking crypto and start thinking industrial.

[Akado]

Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

Yes this.  Make something better so that Nasdaq will NEED to partner with us.

I really think that's the sort of mentality we should have. Most want to partner with the big ones. However we should aim to be one of the big ones. To make BitShares be looked up to. To bring in and create new standards.

[Ander]

Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

Yes this.  Make something better so that Nasdaq will NEED to partner with us.

[Akado]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

 True. Also whoever wrote the article and Bloomberg probably dont have as good as an idea about bitcoin as most of us do because we have all been following it and involved so long.
I do agree. However based on what they said in the last dev hang out one can only hope the "big bank" that is taking notice of bitshares is "big" enough to bring it to Nasdaqs attention....one can only guess....exciting times wow

We don't need to rely on that bank to get public attention. Once 2.0 is delivered we will have a lot of hype and will hit most crypto magazines. Not to mention - assuming we get new annoucements - we will have more partners by then.

On top of that, with 2.0 working, those partners will be able to bring in new users and get the volume rolling.

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

You don't need a working implementation to pitch this to exchanges. We just don't have adequate connections.

True but it's better when you have a product that can speak for itself. Then people won't be so skeptical



Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

[bobmaloney]

I love how Nasdaq continues to get publicity from this regurgitated topic week after week  -  They've been riding this one since early May.

Hats off to them.

[clout]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

You don't need a working implementation to pitch this to exchanges. We just don't have adequate connections.

[Blazin8888]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

 True. Also whoever wrote the article and Bloomberg probably dont have as good as an idea about bitcoin as most of us do because we have all been following it and involved so long.
I do agree. However based on what they said in the last dev hang out one can only hope the "big bank" that is taking notice of bitshares is "big" enough to bring it to Nasdaqs attention....one can only guess....exciting times wow

[clout]

@Blazin8888 Nasdaq has partnered with Chain to use the Open Asset protocol on top of the bitcoin block chain.

I don't think they are making their own block chain. None of the other exchanges have done so and they haven't announced an incubator program for block chain teck like some banks. I think if they are using bitcoin they don't really understand the technology fully, but as I said early bitcoin get the job done for what they are currently trying to use it for.

[Helikopterben]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

[Akado]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

[Blazin8888]

Seems I overestimated how much time NASDAQ invests in research prior to execution ..
In the end, we should try to be a lot more present at conferences, meetups and workshops/hackatons..

So I don't think its simply an issue of research. Nadaq is one of the most technologically advances exchanges in all areas of the exchange business not just trade execution. They really want to use this technology to consolidate back office operations because it will allow for them to have a competitive advantage over those other exchanges that have more heavily invested in clearing services.

To be fair they are only just getting their feet wet and bitcoin being the premier blockchain at the moment is a good way of doing that. They are using bitcoin to manage cap tables which can be adequately performed using bitcoins blockchain and open assets. I can't remember where exactly I reqd this, but I'm pretty sure they are looking for alternatives to bitcoin going forward.

I think it would be really beneficial to reach out nasdaq to give them an idea of what this technology is capable in terms of scalability and in terms of compliance. Additionally I think it would be good to reach out CMEs Strategic Investment Group, which invested in ripple.

Our pitch to these exchanges should be that clients can create their own ETPs, thereby allowing these exchanges to capture a larger share of the OTC markets and position themselves for changes in regulatory guidance such as MiFID II which will restrict OTC trading in the future.

I am 100% with you. We all need to step our game up and let them know.

It says nothing about using Bitcoins blockchain. It says they are going to use tech behind it. Who knows what they are cookin up

"Earlier this year, Nasdaq joined a clutch of companies seeking to adapt blockchain for mainstream finance, saying it would “leverage blockchain technology as part of an enterprise-wide initiative.”
“We also plan to announce further blockchain initiatives in the future,” Greifeld said Thursday during a conference call with analysts. “The application of blockchain technology within Nasdaq’s private market aims to modernize, streamline and really secure cumbersome administrative functions,”
Last month, Symbiont, which plans to use blockchain to make it quicker and cheaper to transfer assets between buyers and sellers, raised $1.25 million from financial industry heavyweights including former New York Stock Exchange chief Duncan Niederauer, former Citadel LLC executive Matt Andresen, and two co-founders of high-frequency trading firm Getco LLC, Dan Tierney and Stephen Schuler."


Imo we have the potential to already be at number 2 on CMC people just dont see it yet. Im sure if they are in talks with a big bank then they can get in touch with who they need to. The devs seem very intelligent. Only thing im wondering is if the Nasdaq does create its own blockchain that will render Bitshares useless correct?

[clout]

Seems I overestimated how much time NASDAQ invests in research prior to execution ..
In the end, we should try to be a lot more present at conferences, meetups and workshops/hackatons..

So I don't think its simply an issue of research. Nadaq is one of the most technologically advances exchanges in all areas of the exchange business not just trade execution. They really want to use this technology to consolidate back office operations because it will allow for them to have a competitive advantage over those other exchanges that have more heavily invested in clearing services.

To be fair they are only just getting their feet wet and bitcoin being the premier blockchain at the moment is a good way of doing that. They are using bitcoin to manage cap tables which can be adequately performed using bitcoins blockchain and open assets. I can't remember where exactly I reqd this, but I'm pretty sure they are looking for alternatives to bitcoin going forward.

I think it would be really beneficial to reach out nasdaq to give them an idea of what this technology is capable in terms of scalability and in terms of compliance. Additionally I think it would be good to reach out CMEs Strategic Investment Group, which invested in ripple.

Our pitch to these exchanges should be that clients can create their own ETPs, thereby allowing these exchanges to capture a larger share of the OTC markets and position themselves for changes in regulatory guidance such as MiFID II which will restrict OTC trading in the future.

[Ander]

"Nasdaq to downgrade from 100000s of tps to 7".  lol.

For the financial industry a little will go a looong way.  I'm sure that's sufficient for Nasdaq's needs.  They get a indisputable ledger every ten minutes for their millions upon millions of trades-- down siziing completely their administration and upkeep for accounting.

And then after they see how cool it is we will be there with 2.0, asking them how they would like to upgrade.

[Bitcoinfan]

"Nasdaq to downgrade from 100000s of tps to 7".  lol.

For the financial industry a little will go a looong way.  I'm sure that's sufficient for Nasdaq's needs.  They get a indisputable ledger every ten minutes for their millions upon millions of trades-- down siziing completely their administration and upkeep for accounting. 

[Ander]

"Nasdaq to downgrade from 100000s of tps to 7".  lol.

[xeroc]

Seems I overestimated how much time NASDAQ invests in research prior to execution ..
In the end, we should try to be a lot more present at conferences, meetups and workshops/hackatons..

[jsidhu]

can someone point them over to our website?

Didn't you read the article? They WANT to use legacy Bitcoin technology
A company of that size should have experts that are able to browse over CMC and read about "competitors" and alternatives to bitcoin ..
unless they just want to use the bitcoin hype

Unless bitcoin uses lighting transactions which are prototype and probably wont work for them, bitcoin work do the job with 3 tps... I doubt many of them are experts in the crypto field to say that bitshares will solve their problems for them, however talking to the dev team will help alleviate any issues they may have. I bet its a good thing to contact them.

[clout]

I think Dan and the team are extremely talented developers, but they don't entirely understand the industry in which they find themselves. They are however very far ahead of the curve from a technical standpoint, and I have the utmost confidence that major partnerships will arise from their hard work. There are certainly ppl that I can reach out to on their behalf its just that there's not much to show at this point.

[topcandle]

Information on bitshares has not been readily accessible. These companies are not looking at CMC or forums to find partnerships. We have to reach out to reputable VCs or to exchanges like Nasdaq directly. There has been very little emphasis on strategic planning and partnerships by the the core team.

yeah in action that's true.  But its so contary to what they have been saying.  in what's been verbalized, the CNX has been saying they have a bag full of partnerships/ fleet of planes to land on bitshares airstrip. 

I'm glad you agree, we have little to show in terms of partnerships so far. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17610.0.html

[clout]

Information on bitshares has not been readily accessible. These companies are not looking at CMC or forums to find partnerships. We have to reach out to reputable VCs or to exchanges like Nasdaq directly. There has been very little emphasis on strategic planning and partnerships by the the core team.

[topcandle]

can someone point them over to our website?

Didn't you read the article? They WANT to use legacy Bitcoin technology
A company of that size should have experts that are able to browse over CMC and read about "competitors" and alternatives to bitcoin ..
unless they just want to use the bitcoin hype

bitshares right now hasn't deliver neither. 

[xeroc]

can someone point them over to our website?

Didn't you read the article? They WANT to use legacy Bitcoin technology
A company of that size should have experts that are able to browse over CMC and read about "competitors" and alternatives to bitcoin ..
unless they just want to use the bitcoin hype

[jsidhu]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

can someone point them over to our website?