Maker/Taker <-- +5%
This is the first of many new proposals that don't cost the BTS stakeholders much of anything to get powerful new features. In this case all the stakeholders must do is grant permission for a hardfork that implements a new feature. 100% of the new feature is self funded.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20482.0
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475
Rate Limited Fees <-- +5% +5% especially the weighting by transaction frequency
Free transactions proportional to user's stake and transaction frequency
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.0.html
Negative Fees <-- +5% i support any plans to support liquidity
As a mean of Subsidizing Market Liquidity. Allows people to get paid for orders sitting on the order books for more than 24 hours for example. This is done to prevent abuse and people buying/selling to themselves. A worker is needed for a specific market. This worker will pay for this negative fees. I think this could be seen as a loan, we pay now, to increase liquidity which will reward BitShares later.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html
Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
Sidechain of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin could be used as collateral for example.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html
Bond Market <-- +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% VERY MUCH SUPPORT, esp idea of a Bitshares bond recycling fees as interest/dividends
Seems to have been delayed. In order to properly work needs deep market depth. We are not there yet.
This week's hangout covers these topics and I suggest you to listen to it (2016-02-19). Check it here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21540.msg280450.html#msg280450 thanks to @BitShares News
Can we put autobridging on the roadmap? It doesnt sound too hard to allow market pegged assets to be swapped via BTS. The impression of added liquidity that it would give to BTC:USD would be huge.
Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
@Akado new thoughts about bond market is here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21700.0.html
BM also mentioned EVM in last week's mumble hangout.
Me too, so why don't we start that before the bond market, and get some of that Ethereum pump while it's still strong.Sidechains should be #3 or #4 depending on the amount of time it takes, assuming #1 and #2 are relatively fast to implement? We should have it before the bond market I guess. 100% collateral only sounds very attractive. Bond market just seems like a nice complement for that.
The bond market still needs to simmer until the DEX liquidity reaches critical mass.
If we get some Ether pump, then we will have more $ for development.
So as I see it:
1. liquidity subsidy
2. rate limited fee options
3. Faster Ethere VM
4. Bond Market
QuoteSidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:
* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE :)
QuoteSidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!
+5% +5%
All the roadmap proposals are great once people are in the bitshares environment. Sidechains is the only one that also actually gets people there. These are the points (already made) that convinced me:
- Yes, sidechain 1st mover exposure would be huge. Viral marketing without the cost.
- We'd be equivalent to any exchange out there but private (ie. stealth) and decentralized. It would open up a market for whale traders who want to remain anonymous.
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:
* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE :)
QuoteSidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:
* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE :)
If BTS exploded w/ each coin added, I don't think witnesses would mind running more nodes. :)
Seriously, though, if a worker proposal for sidechains gets approved, we could immediately send a press release to create a buzz around the bitcoin world.
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:
* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE :)
If BTS exploded w/ each coin added, I don't think witnesses would mind running more nodes. :)
Seriously, though, if a worker proposal for sidechains gets approved, we could immediately send a press release to create a buzz around the bitcoin world.
Plus, we would be in the good graces of the bitcoin centric guys
I vote that we should wait until Nubits does it first (they should be launching soon):Sounds interesting.. my questions here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.msg11153629#msg11153629
"The Basics:
B&C Exchange will be an open-source decentralized exchange that completes cryptocurrency trades between users by utilizing multisig signers that compete for blockchain rewards based on their effectiveness and honesty. Trades will occur using real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and NuBits, as opposed to artificial proxy cryptoassets like those found in BitShares."
yeah, you get to vote for your miners just like we do, so everyone basically has the same incentive to not work against the team like we do. Nobody has been doublespent on that matters anyway. All anyone cares about now is features, not decentralization or speed or scalability anymore.So it seems you're a Nubits fan? You think Nubits is successful. Yes, MtGox and Cryptsy were successful as well.
Blockshares, if you can't already tell from he name, is a general copy of BitShares' governance structure, except it is "real" like bitcoin and Nubits, and not "artificially" fake like BitShares/bitUSD, or so says the global leading smartcoin liquidity provider.
I vote that we should wait until Nubits does it first (they should be launching soon):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.msg11153629#msg11153629
"The Basics:
B&C Exchange will be an open-source decentralized exchange that completes cryptocurrency trades between users by utilizing multisig signers that compete for blockchain rewards based on their effectiveness and honesty. Trades will occur using real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and NuBits, as opposed to artificial proxy cryptoassets like those found in BitShares."
Face it fellas, the game is over, and you lost. You gave bitUSD to Nubits and now you are giving the DEX away, when all you had to do to become a "real crypto" in the eyes of the crypto masses was to have your miners simply run 2 chains instead of 1. Just go and build your bond market, that nobody cares about right now, and leave the spoils of victory of becoming the "first real DEX on planet earth" to the real players.
B&C Exchange is hiring two full time C++ developers (https://discuss.nubits.com/t/b-c-exchange-is-hiring-a-c-developer/3525).
Progress has been slower than expected because developers (most of whom had agreed to work about half time) haven't put in the quantity of hours that were discussed when the project began. Fortunately, this means little funding has been consumed, so we get another chance without needing any additional funding. The best way to resolve the issue is to simply require full time developers, so they don't have any other work competing for their time and attention. Additionally, these two full time developers won't be working on the NuBit project at all. There has been a dynamic where the shared team for B&C Exchange and NuBits tends to put more time than expected on NuBits because it is a live and operational network, which means issues tend to seem more urgent than they do for the not yet operational B&C Exchange.
Previously, the strategy had been to use the same team members that had accomplished the amazing technical feats we see in the NuBits project. This approach hasn't worked. During NuBit development, we had a team of 5 or 6 people working full time. The NuBit budget experienced an 80% reduction in funding before B&C Exchange funding was successfully obtained. So, the team was mostly disbanded. Getting funding for B&C Exchange was not sufficient to pull the team back together for a second project.
With two full time developers, a full time QA resource, most of my attention going to my architect role, and a number of veteran part time developers, the project should be well positioned to be completed the middle of this year.
I am still very confident the design of B&C Exchange is practical and viable. Major progress has been made, particularly in the form of our 4.0 RC2 build, which contains a large percentage of the features needed in B&C Exchange. The change in direction toward new full time developers is likely to bring the core software to completion in a timely manner. While there is still a good chance we will be able to complete non-core infrastructure such as a web interface with our current budget, the chances appear lower than they did a number of months ago.
Much will hinge on the quality and devotion of the developers who have yet to be hired. Active shareholders should do their best to encourage excellent candidates to reach out to me.
It's just too bad that the rest of the community is blind to the millions of dollars looking for the world's first "real" DEX
I am in favour of anything that strengthens the DEX though as I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.
The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.
There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.
So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.
I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.
I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.
The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.
There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.
So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.
I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.
I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures. @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs. But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition. I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool. I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.
I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.
I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures. @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs. But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition. I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool. I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.
why are sidechains so critical for our success?
how would the 1% (or whatever %) be paid to those who borrow smartcoins? taken from fees in each respective market? if so, i'd support something like that and go one step further and not place a specific % yield on any asset; i'd recommend setting a % split from fees collected in each respective market. that way we're really supporting liquidity by rewarding short sellers more as transaction frequency increases, and the payment stream is robust to changing market conditions ...if transactions fall, so do payouts without breaking any other funding source.
Bitcoin sidechain means trading real BTC on the DEX. Surely you see the incredible implications of that. Then imagine adding robust BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR markets so people can trade their BTC in and out of fiat in a decentralized manner. That's just the beginning.
As for paying yield to those who create BitAssets, @bytemaster mentioned on the last mumble that he likes the idea of paying people to lock up their BTS but that it's much more helpful if they take the next step and provide liquidity. That's why I'm suggesting a small yield paid by the reserve pool for getting people to move funds to the DEX and create BitAssets in the first place, thereby jumpstarting activity on the DEX and making us the world's crypto fiat leader....and then using another small amount of funds from the reserve pool to incentivize a subset of the BitAsset creators to participate in a liquidity pool. The cost is neutral to those creating BitAssets. Actually, considering the great benefits, everyone including those not creating BitAssets should gain due to a rising BTS price. All things considered, it seems like such a no-brainer to try this.
Our marketing execution has been a joke
;D
- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin. Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well? Huge liquidity.
this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:
* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE :)
Agreed +5% +5%
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.
That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.
However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...
All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?
How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield? Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)
(http://crackmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Product-Life-Cycle.jpg)
Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa +5% on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.
All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure. Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the % directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)
ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.
Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtfIf the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.
That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.
However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...
All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?
How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield? Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)
(http://crackmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Product-Life-Cycle.jpg)
Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa +5% on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.
All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure. Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the % directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)
ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.
Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.
This really is quite a smart idea. It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets. I don't know what we're waiting for. Pretty soon it will be too late. @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D. Why are you remaining silent? Are you not counting on BitAssets? Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies? I'm baffled.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf
This really is quite a smart idea. It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets. I don't know what we're waiting for. Pretty soon it will be too late. @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D. Why are you remaining silent? Are you not counting on BitAssets? Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies? I'm baffled.
+5% +5% +5%tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtfIf the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.
That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.
However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...
All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?
How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield? Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)
(http://crackmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Product-Life-Cycle.jpg)
Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa +5% on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.
All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure. Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the % directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)
ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.
Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.
This really is quite a smart idea. It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets. I don't know what we're waiting for. Pretty soon it will be too late. @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D. Why are you remaining silent? Are you not counting on BitAssets? Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies? I'm baffled.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf
This really is quite a smart idea. It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets. I don't know what we're waiting for. Pretty soon it will be too late. @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D. Why are you remaining silent? Are you not counting on BitAssets? Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies? I'm baffled.
@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of). But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system. So why even bother?
Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg. This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity. This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle.
All we need to do is jump start this process. We need to prime the pump, so to speak. It will not happen on its own. We are running out of time. And unfortunately this community is asleep. Respected contributors are not paying attention. Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own. Let's see how far this gets us. I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope. I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf
This really is quite a smart idea. It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets. I don't know what we're waiting for. Pretty soon it will be too late. @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D. Why are you remaining silent? Are you not counting on BitAssets? Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies? I'm baffled.
@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of). But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system. So why even bother?
Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg. This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity. This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle.
All we need to do is jump start this process. We need to prime the pump, so to speak. It will not happen on its own. We are running out of time. And unfortunately this community is asleep. Respected contributors are not paying attention. Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own. Let's see how far this gets us. I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope. I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered.
@tbone If bitassets become way more liquid with tighter spreads, then call me a supporter (URL of Empirical's BSIP?). Customers will love that too when paying at the cash register since they will pay way less money in fees. Just fyi, merchants pay nothing. Merchants just download the free POS app and then stick the "Smartcoins accepted here" sticker in the window. The rewards card features in the POS gives them even more incentive to use our apps.
updated
updated
I think some of the status '-' should be "To Be Discuss further/Determined" or "On-Hold".
Done!
Very encouraged to see this roadmap.. it's an ideal route for people widely to see progress being made. Well worth the effort then keeping it up to date..
I wonder that some estimated dates ~Jan2016 need restating.. would be interesting for example, to see more clearly where Moonstone is up to, as that's not immediately obvious for all the posts we might find by searching, having it all in one place is much more friendly to potential investors. 8)
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?
Road Map
1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD.
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)
Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account
BitUSD Balance: $888 Buy BitUSD $1:01 Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield: 4.6%
Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.
Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.
The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)
i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.
That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.
However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...
All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?
How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield? Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)
(http://crackmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Product-Life-Cycle.jpg)
Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa +5% on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.
All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure. Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the % directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)
ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.
Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.
I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.
I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.
@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind. He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions. He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc. He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.
I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points. First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting. Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets. So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity. Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.
So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg. I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.
I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.
@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind. He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions. He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc. He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.
I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points. First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting. Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets. So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity. Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.
So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg. I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.
Agreed @tbone. BSIP needed. Let's git'r done. Once live, you have our votes.
@Empirical1.2
To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.
@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind. He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions. He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc. He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.
I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points. First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting. Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets. So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity. Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.
So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg. I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.
Agreed @tbone. BSIP needed. Let's git'r done. Once live, you have our votes.
@Empirical1.2
+5% That's really positive from BM. Regards a BSIP I haven't done one before but feel it may need BM's input to turn that idea/concept into something viable. If someone wants to attempt one I'll certainly support it otherwise I may have time to do one later in the week.
This week I may attempt to get in touch with some liquidity pool operators to find out if it's easier/cheaper to incentivise liquidity once millions of BitUSD have been created & can be used as that would certainly make a stronger case for it too.
To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).
One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).
What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).
One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).
The interest will go to people who put their BitUSD/BTS in the liquidity pool paid for by BTS shareholders.
If you were yield harvesting BitUSD, so had BitUSD in your account anyway it may not take much to convince you to send some of it to the liquidity pool. I know very little about market making and liquidity pools but I have created a liquidity pool discussion and given an example of one so hopefully I/we can find out more about if they are a helpful/cost effective way of achieving liquidity and a tight peg. Would be interested in your opinion/input...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21800.0.html
All these features can be done in 3rd-party CLIENT SOFTWARE, but not have to be done in the core, nor have to ask for BM's or other core developers' opinion. It's safe to let the committee hold and distribute the funds for incentives.
In regards to the funds for development, you can try IPO or other ways to raise funds first, after main functionality is completed developing, sell the feature to stake holders via worker (or maybe you'll find it's good to operate it by yourself at that time).
What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).
One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).
The interest will go to people who put their BitUSD/BTS in the liquidity pool paid for by BTS shareholders.
If you were yield harvesting BitUSD, so had BitUSD in your account anyway it may not take much to convince you to send some of it to the liquidity pool. I know very little about market making and liquidity pools but I have created a liquidity pool discussion and given an example of one so hopefully I/we can find out more about if they are a helpful/cost effective way of achieving liquidity and a tight peg. Would be interested in your opinion/input...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21800.0.html
My temporary conclusion is: when it's possible to do yield harvesting, if you want more interest from BitUSD, don't put your BitUSD into liquidity pool. Or say, any interest on BitUSD will make the cost of running a liquidity pool more expensive, since the investors expect more return.
By the way, why not quote and/or reply to the rest of my previous post?All these features can be done in 3rd-party CLIENT SOFTWARE, but not have to be done in the core, nor have to ask for BM's or other core developers' opinion. It's safe to let the committee hold and distribute the funds for incentives.
In regards to the funds for development, you can try IPO or other ways to raise funds first, after main functionality is completed developing, sell the feature to stake holders via worker (or maybe you'll find it's good to operate it by yourself at that time).
What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?
My temporary conclusion is: when it's possible to do yield harvesting, if you want more interest from BitUSD, don't put your BitUSD into liquidity pool. Or say, any interest on BitUSD will make the cost of running a liquidity pool more expensive, since the investors expect more return.
By the way, why not quote and/or reply to the rest of my previous post?
Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.
Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?
I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?
I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.
We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.
You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.
Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?
I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?
I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.
We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.
i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.
You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.
Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?
I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?
I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.
We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.
i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.
I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.
Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,
i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.
You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.
Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?
I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?
I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.
We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.
i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.
I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.
Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,
Thanks, your words are very good.You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.
Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?
I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?
I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.
We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.
i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.
I think, in my opinion, that the referral program has been to weak from the start. You cannot build a profitable business based on the referral program alone! I calculated 4 different business plans based on BitShares and considered several profitable income streams. At the end, the referral program always ended up with below 5% of the total income. It is hard to predict the real referral income for the next 3 years. You cannot convince any investors with such a business model.
If you want to build MLM systems look at http://beonpush-guide.com/english/index.html or similar platforms. Nobody else pays you 0,5%-3,5% interest per day! That is a real MLM construct. You would need to take Beonpush on BitShares to build a interesting MLM for Online Marketers.I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.
Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,
I strongly disagree. Looking at the great success of Ethereum I think we need a coordinated, Blockchain funded(worker), marketing approach that drafts a story around our technology. I do not believe that people will just "come". That might have been the case with Bitcoin, since it was all new. Now 99% of people know the Name Bitcoin, while 1% have ever bought a Bitcoin. No IT-geek will start to look over again for the best technology out there. They looked at Bitcoin and see it fail.
If you look for Blockchain solutions today, we have over 200 stand alone Blockchain providers alone. All those Blockchain consultants and independent IT Software solutions are loud and negotiating with corporate and governments about trail projects today. There will be no second Overstock scanning the whole market for the best solution. Let alone R3 & IBM and is providing working solutions for their clients already.
In these days BitShares can not allow to be quite and just build feature after feature to hope that maybe somebody will discover us in our little corner of the market.
BitShares needs to be loud. It needs to show presence at conferences and market the hell out of it. @Dan must go back on the road and challenge Ethereum in an epic battle of super Blockchain masterminds.
At the end we will all benefit from that. Every BitShares company will take off like a rocket as soon as the marketcap rises and we can sell our BitShares depots to fund further development. What if you have been an Ethereum Startup with a few thousands ETH in reserves? You had enough time to liquidate at ~$10 USD and are now sitting on a working capital of $+100.000 to market, build and create awesome products. BitShares does not have that luxury, so we need to come all together, use the resources we have today and promote our main features - Price stable Crypto Currencies!! That beats Bitcoin alone!
We do not have 4 months time to wait. The train will be gone for us.
I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.
Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,
I strongly disagree. Looking at the great success of Ethereum I think we need a coordinated, Blockchain funded(worker), marketing approach that drafts a story around our technology. I do not believe that people will just "come". That might have been the case with Bitcoin, since it was all new. Now 99% of people know the Name Bitcoin, while 1% have ever bought a Bitcoin. No IT-geek will start to look over again for the best technology out there. They looked at Bitcoin and see it fail.
If you look for Blockchain solutions today, we have over 200 stand alone Blockchain providers alone. All those Blockchain consultants and independent IT Software solutions are loud and negotiating with corporate and governments about trail projects today. There will be no second Overstock scanning the whole market for the best solution. Let alone R3 & IBM and is providing working solutions for their clients already.
In these days BitShares can not allow to be quite and just build feature after feature to hope that maybe somebody will discover us in our little corner of the market.
BitShares needs to be loud. It needs to show presence at conferences and market the hell out of it. @Dan must go back on the road and challenge Ethereum in an epic battle of super Blockchain masterminds.
At the end we will all benefit from that. Every BitShares company will take off like a rocket as soon as the marketcap rises and we can sell our BitShares depots to fund further development. What if you have been an Ethereum Startup with a few thousands ETH in reserves? You had enough time to liquidate at ~$10 USD and are now sitting on a working capital of $+100.000 to market, build and create awesome products. BitShares does not have that luxury, so we need to come all together, use the resources we have today and promote our main features - Price stable Crypto Currencies!! That beats Bitcoin alone!
We do not have 4 months time to wait. The train will be gone for us.
People are apprehensive about paying for marketing ever since Brian page fucked us. Not saying that pay for marketing wouldn't work, but the last attempt set bts back massively. It was false promise after false promise.
We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.
Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, kick me in the balls and tell me not to be so dumb.
We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.
Obviously every business that builds on top of Bitshares will do some form of marketing for their own business/brand. But I agree with @Chris4210 that Bitshares itself very much needs a coordinated, focused marketing effort. Isn't CNI going to be handling that?
People are apprehensive about paying for marketing ever since Brian page fucked us. Not saying that pay for marketing wouldn't work, but the last attempt set bts back massively. It was false promise after false promise.
We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.
Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, kick me in the balls and tell me not to be so dumb.
Yeah... but I think you can agree that some of their lack of performance had to do with a less than marketable product. Or at least not being able to find a market that wanted/needed/could use that product other than those that invested.
What we had then to what we have now is like night and day.
We do not need to pay a marketer.. what we do need are tools to allow people to better market what we have and a roadmap to how people can profit for themselves using the refer program. Now mind you someone can design a program like this themselves and host their own wallet and then in turn be able to profit based on their performance. It's just that the barrier to entry on that front on the technical end is a bit more than most marketers are willing to stomach.
So there are two or three items I see that we could potentially consider if we were going to use a Worker in this regard:
1. Market research to better identify our target audiences so that we can target our messaging accordingly - intelligence
2. Develop the process/app of launching customized wallets to be more adoptable for marketers - tools
3. Have a management and development department with these tools to promote/manage/support marketers - execution
There is literally the largest army on earth of work at home affiliate marketers that can be employed if the right type of alignment is put in place as i have outlined.
That is where we should be focusing as a DAC platform.
To enable the masses with opportunities to prosper through Bitshares.
We can put together such a proposal for a 'roadmap' in this regard along with budgetary requirements and proposal to execute.
Perhaps with the introduction of no negative voting it might have some legs.
This all really depends on if you want to see Bitshares brand itself grow. Leaving it to anybody else only will result in the promotion of their own brand. Take for example Ronnie.. Openledger is the brand being promoted along with Obits... his efforts affect the price of obits, not really Bitshares.
If you want to see market cap and branding of Bitshares grow, then these are my recommendations based on 20+ years in business.
Thoughts?
I'm not sure how much even a large marketing campaign will help. I know what bitshares offers yet I'm not using the exchange. The perception is it's just an exchange w/ newly added bells/whistles. ETH and MAID aren't being propelled due to marketing. Instead, they have a compelling story, a fresh identity that's starting to become reality.
For the long-term viability of bitshares, I think we should start creating relationships outside our world. Sidechains would be the place to start because a collaborative effort is needed anyways to get it to where it's a game-changer for bitshares. We can initiate an open dialogue with Blockstream. Why not us post on their forum? The visibility would be more far-reaching than a take-a-look-at-us approach..
Working relationships would create and open new opportunities for future ideas. Result: automatic buzz, a sense that bitshares is working for everybody, great PR. I can see CNX getting long-term work from it.
This thread just started by JonnyBitcoin is a good start.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html)
i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.
@cylonmaker2053 You are a perfect candidate to be a Meetup group host. Meetups are the best way to introduce new people to Bitshares and everything the platform has to offer. We have a mobile wallet now too and in a couple weeks we will have the first couple POS systems ready for launch as well so right now is the perfect time to setup a meetup at your local coffee shop, bar or whatever. It's friendly, social people like you who are our greatest asset! Check this out, it is very easy:
http://bitshares.meetup.com
I'm not sure how much even a large marketing campaign will help. I know what bitshares offers yet I'm not using the exchange. The perception is it's just an exchange w/ newly added bells/whistles. ETH and MAID aren't being propelled due to marketing. Instead, they have a compelling story, a fresh identity that's starting to become reality.
For the long-term viability of bitshares, I think we should start creating relationships outside our world. Sidechains would be the place to start because a collaborative effort is needed anyways to get it to where it's a game-changer for bitshares. We can initiate an open dialogue with Blockstream. Why not us post on their forum? The visibility would be more far-reaching than a take-a-look-at-us approach..
Working relationships would create and open new opportunities for future ideas. Result: automatic buzz, a sense that bitshares is working for everybody, great PR. I can see CNX getting long-term work from it.
This thread just started by JonnyBitcoin is a good start.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html)
This makes a lot of sense to me.
BM/Stan - What is the CNX's take on this approach?
This road map is copied into bts Basecamp - https://3.basecamp.com/3319348/buckets/621127/documents/88397031 for easier reference, share and update.
This road map is copied into bts Basecamp - https://3.basecamp.com/3319348/buckets/621127/documents/88397031 for easier reference, share and update.
I can't login...
Maker/taker should go live asap.