You can't short bitAssets without first owning mad collateral which is why nobody has had the guts to enter the smartAsset ring to duke it out with us yet! (this is why BTS = BTC2.O)(remember?)
Be proud of your economic moat, and only lower the drawbridge once it looks like competitors are approaching. Until that time, BEWARE THE BLACK SWAN!
Now, should we offer incentives for people to tie up mad collateral for smart assets?
Of course, the block rewards should go toward bitAsset shorters, why would you want to have such a boring coin that only the miners/delegates get a cut of all the profits (at least STEEM gives money to others who are not dedicated miners/witnesses). Why can't we do things that are unselfish like that? (becasue we didn't want Dan to code the benefits of STEEM and EOS for the benefit of the BitShares community)
oops, sorry, I forgot where I was for a moment.....silly me to forget the selfish greed that made Dan leave here just as he was discussing this very same subject (being less greedy to reduce the spread on bitAssets but you would not allow him to take from the miners)...So go back to choosing your Lambo colors and discussing the removal of the BLACK SWAN PROTECTION so that you can game and then kill Dan's baby.
This is the first time I read a severe and argumentative criticism towards bitshares.
I am new to bitshares and I do not understand very well all the mechanisms yet.
But,for me, it makes sense to say that if SmartAssets are important for bitshares, bitshares have to reward those who take risks engaging collateral.
It looks like "proof of risk", the more volume of SmartCoin you generate, the more important and risky you are, the more you deserve to be rewarded.