0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Correct. I'm not involved with Steem except as a future power user. I've only shared what I'm working on with a few of our most trustworthy forum personalities (and my possibly fictitious secret sauce recipe guard dog, Duke), but they ain't talkin'.
this summer
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on May 18, 2016, 01:26:26 pmLol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me....and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement. In fairness to Stan, I think he has very little involvement with STEEM and is not an employee of Steemit. To the best of my knowledge, his primary role at Cryptonomex is still that of looking for opportunities for BitShares and graphene technology.
Lol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me....and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement.
What I find hard to digest is the fact that the founder of Bitshares doesn't have the ability to get the project done before getting bored and moving his attention somewhere else more interesting.
Quote from: clout on October 07, 2015, 05:59:27 pmQuote from: merockstar on October 07, 2015, 12:26:55 pmQuote from: bitscape on October 07, 2015, 12:40:43 amQuote from: merockstar on October 06, 2015, 10:37:00 pmmaybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.Ahhh, intriguing. A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine. Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...Maybe for those two bridges, but in general there are several purposes for bridges, not just anonymity ... Lower counter party risk when trading across asset platforms; high performance trading; trading convenience; liquidity provider
Quote from: merockstar on October 07, 2015, 12:26:55 pmQuote from: bitscape on October 07, 2015, 12:40:43 amQuote from: merockstar on October 06, 2015, 10:37:00 pmmaybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.Ahhh, intriguing. A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine. Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...
Quote from: bitscape on October 07, 2015, 12:40:43 amQuote from: merockstar on October 06, 2015, 10:37:00 pmmaybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.Ahhh, intriguing. A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine. Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?
Quote from: merockstar on October 06, 2015, 10:37:00 pmmaybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.Ahhh, intriguing. A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine. Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?
maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.
Quote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 03:53:36 amQuote from: bitscape on October 05, 2015, 02:54:20 amQuote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 12:57:49 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?) I'm genuinely curious.Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.So what you're suggesting as a benefit to circle is that bitusd would potentially present less or no tax burden. I'm completely out of my depth here but if bitusd was treated as a commodity, under a 2.0 scheme with a possible bitusd floor of $1.0 and a market driven premium of perhaps 1.01 - 1.15 there may yet exist slight capital gains opportunity for operators working with a large enough volume. Beyond the potential benefits of bitusd from a tax standpoint, what other advantages to circle, or a similar entity, exist in using bitshares 2.0 as opposed to bitcoin / USD? What's the sweet deal we have to offer our as of yet unidentified ACH processor partner? There has to be one or we're not going to get the partnership, especially not if we seem like we're going to thank them and then eat their lunch.
Quote from: bitscape on October 05, 2015, 02:54:20 amQuote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 12:57:49 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?) I'm genuinely curious.Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.
Quote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 12:57:49 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?) I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.
Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.
Quote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 04:26:16 amQuote from: DataSecurityNode on October 05, 2015, 04:22:24 amI would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.Recommend against what?It depends on where you live really.. but treating bitUSD without tax implications is what I meant. I don't recommend it. Consider the very real possibility that when/if a tax regulation gets set down in bitUSD that they back date it to when bitUSD was created for where you live. Sure it is not easy for them to find out just how much you have/had.. but either way you are not going to enjoy the auditing. It is often easier in situations where regulations don't exist to operate as though they do. In some rare cases.. it spares real regulation coming down.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on October 05, 2015, 04:22:24 amI would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.Recommend against what?
I would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.
The touch point when it comes to ACH is the delay.ACH is cheaper because its slower.It's like attaching a Lamborghini Huracán to a horse and buggy. You can all figure out which one in my analogy is the Huracán. The 'good news' is that only recently (like a few months ago) they have moved to some transactions being processed 'same day'. Still a bit of a contrast to our 1 second block time. There are two elements to this.. you need an ODFI and an Operator. What you want 'ideally' so we can wack the buggy, set the horse free, and put a Lamborghini Veneno along side the Huracán is to have the ODFI and Operator to be one and the same... because ultimately its the clearing house that will determine the speed it gets to the RDFI. Currently there are only a few Operators used by everyone and thus impacts the timing.This is going to put the ODFI/Operator to the the BitShares network in a liability position that needs to be handled correctly, not just for compliance, but for security. Keep in mind when the banks mess up, they just need to make some phone calls to whom ever was on the other end and reverse the mistake. In interfacing with BitShares though.. that's not an option.. and that creates a significantly higher risk profile. Which is why so many of the current solutions work with mega delay. HOWEVER... we are anticipating a solution that could be engineered to minimize this liability thanks in part to some 2.0 features coupled with a little more engineering on our part. We cannot confirm any of this of course until we got 2.0. You also have to consider the costs. It will double up on the transaction charges since there will be BitShares charging and then the ACH processing.Not saying it can't be done or it will be too expensive.. just depends what degree of service will be expected and how much it will take to deliver on it.I only know all this because of the work we are doing in regards to what BunkerDEX is offering and our Rewards and another yet announced product. I am not saying that we have the final solution 'now'... but I am working on it. There are some creative ways this can be accomplished.This will be necessary in the mean time until we can close the loop (ie. all transactions in the DEX).FYI ACH includes US, it's territories, and Canada. I am sure you got lots of peeps to talk with now Stan... but I would be happy to help out however I can if the need arises. @Shentist - Yes.. ACH is US own inter-bank transfer system.. while most of the rest of the world uses SWIFT. Kinda like how we all use metric and US still uses imperial Canadian banks use SWIFT also.. so Canada is uniquely positioned to be able to talk to both networks and provide BitShares on/off ramp for both... and nuclear bunker hardened security to boot if we have anything to do with it. Oh and Holy Shanaynay this is awesome!
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on October 05, 2015, 04:07:58 amQuote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 03:53:36 amQuote from: bitscape on October 05, 2015, 02:54:20 amQuote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 12:57:49 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?) I'm genuinely curious.Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.What do you mean by the bold part? Why would you want that? I mean that if you want to go from bitusd to usd you there are no tax implications, if you go from bitcoin to usd there are. the former is more convenient than the latter.
Quote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 03:53:36 amQuote from: bitscape on October 05, 2015, 02:54:20 amQuote from: clout on October 05, 2015, 12:57:49 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on October 03, 2015, 12:17:37 amObvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal. Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?) I'm genuinely curious.Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.What do you mean by the bold part? Why would you want that?
Founded in 2013 by serial Internet entrepreneurs Jeremy Allaire and Sean Neville, Circle is backed by $76 million in venture capital investment from Goldman Sachs, IDG Capital Partners, Breyer Capital, Accel Partners, General Catalyst Partners, Oak Investment Partners, Fenway Summer, Digital Currency Group, and Pantera Capital.
Quote from: Murderistic on October 05, 2015, 12:29:56 amHey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked stand to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problemProbably best to ask for yourself, but i have personally always liked the open conversation. It gives us an idea of where we are that they are so open about it. And as for finding answers, it was worth it to check...you never know when an untapped resource may be found.
Hey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked stand to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problem
How about keep things quiet and not start more speculative bullshit. If it actually happens then talk. OR this thread was designed to pump BTS
Quote from: Akado on October 03, 2015, 02:56:49 pmcouldn't this be done via privatized bitassets? they would create their own btiUSDI was thinking the same, thier own usd pegged asset.Fyi they deal in 60 countries and need to settle in more than one currency.As for chicken and the egg, I didnt consider that problem, though my thought on it is they wouldnt need to immediately put 500 mil into bitusd, but would sort of put it in as they go every month. They would have as much exposure then, right?You folks are much smarter than I am, thanks for your perspective.
couldn't this be done via privatized bitassets? they would create their own btiUSD
Quote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 02:22:15 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 01:25:51 pmQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 03:54:18 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 02:45:26 amQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 01:32:52 amWhat does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative. The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.No sane business of decent size would do thatActually it seems quite common. While they say it was not their intention to convert their investors to clients, it looks like some of the investors in new payroll startup, ZenPayroll, switched the payroll of their companies over...Quote"Right now we have a very strong focus on small businesses, and sub-100 person companies," Reeves says. "We did not take these investors to convert them to clients, it's about getting a chance to talk to these people who have been in our shoes." http://uk.businessinsider.com/practically-every-notable-founder-in-silicon-valley-just-invested-in-this-startup-2014-11?r=US&IR=T
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 01:25:51 pmQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 03:54:18 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 02:45:26 amQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 01:32:52 amWhat does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative. The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.No sane business of decent size would do that
Quote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 03:54:18 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 02:45:26 amQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 01:32:52 amWhat does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative. The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 03, 2015, 02:45:26 amQuote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 01:32:52 amWhat does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.
Quote from: jsidhu on October 03, 2015, 01:32:52 amWhat does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.
What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.
"Right now we have a very strong focus on small businesses, and sub-100 person companies," Reeves says. "We did not take these investors to convert them to clients, it's about getting a chance to talk to these people who have been in our shoes."
Quote from: btswildpig on October 03, 2015, 03:09:18 amQuote from: Murderistic on October 03, 2015, 12:01:21 amI'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.Egg and chicken question ? If bitshares doesn't have 500 million + * 2 market cap , it can't provide 500 million bitusd . If bitshares doesn't have 500 million bitusd , it can't have 500 million + *2 market cap . Its not a chicken and egg problem.If This partner was to have demand for 500M in bitusd, then they would be buying bts like crazy and cause the price to become high enough to support that much bitusd.
Quote from: Murderistic on October 03, 2015, 12:01:21 amI'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.Egg and chicken question ? If bitshares doesn't have 500 million + * 2 market cap , it can't provide 500 million bitusd . If bitshares doesn't have 500 million bitusd , it can't have 500 million + *2 market cap .
I'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 03, 2015, 05:29:58 amI would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.The fact that the father of Bitshares ponders this and supposed partners haven't, says a lot into something. I'll let you decide what.
I would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.
If im reading this correctly, I'm not quite sure the OP question is clear enough for a specific answer imo. Are we looking to find a new payroll processor that will accept bit assets from the company and then that processor splits out the payroll to Individual employees who wants to get paid via ach, bit assets or a combo of each?Or are we in search of a bank that'll be willing to integrate directly to BTS as a checking and savings off ramp?
hmm One would think Identabit has already solved that 'problem'...Which is it - they have not or they do not share with you guys?
Quote from: Stan on October 03, 2015, 12:08:42 amCan we at least have a "holy explicative deleted" from someone?Holy shit....But I'll save the bubbly for post contract & announcement. Best of luck!
Can we at least have a "holy explicative deleted" from someone?
We've been talking with a potential partner who has only one more requirement the BitShares Exchange Network currently doesn't meet:What we need is the ability to deposit bitAssets like BitUSD or BitEUR from a wallet account directly into a checking or savings account at a bank through an ACH option.Automated Clearing House (ACH) is an electronic network for financial transactions in the United States. ACH processes large volumes of credit and debit transactions in batches. ACH credit transfers include direct deposit, payroll and vendor payments. When you get direct deposit, it is an ACH depositWhat we need is we need to find some type of service or bridge that can bridge the two. As an example: an employer has a million employees and wants to switch their entire payroll system to using our assets. That would mean that employer would need to take currency and load it into their account and then distributed to all of their employees. Then their employees would have the option to deposit it directly into their regular bank checking account, or keep it in their wallet and be able to swipe a card at a point of sale. CCEDK has the card in point of sale deal worked out in regards to integrating with the wallet, but we need to have an ACH deposit option. If we can get this worked out as soon as possible then BitShares has a very good chance of landing an extremely large client right now. We've already had the talks and they've already agreed as long as we can provide that option. They are currently using check, direct deposit, and loaded prepaid cards but they want to outsource that to other network partners and do everything in BitAssets.We could use some research leads on who in the world is a good choice provide ACH deposit off-ramp services to the entire BitShares Exchange Network.This is not a Summer Announcement, but I do feel a slight Disturbance in the Force.