Looks Good!
However I think the user experience should be improved before presenting BitsharesX in such way.
Client should be polished and market rules finalized (at least temporarily) and clearly explained.
Well now that's just unkind. Teasing us like this... Will this be the subject of your keynote? Do we really have to wait that long???
Suppose we already were good friends with people offering such a pre-paid card?
Suppose these friends already owned a large percentage of BTSX?
Maybe I have had too much cool-aid already today. :)
So, be prepared for a dumb question/statement...
Where is the inflation caming into play in all this... The development team believes in this (it seams)... I for one am ready to donate (fund) such effort (so I guess a lot of people will also)... So if it is set as a referral program (of kinds) a lot of non-inflationary BTSX should come into this.
PS
On a side note - BM can you please spread the good news a bit. Some of our hears might not survive such extreme emotional excitement, coming in short intervals.... :)
Finally!!!! To do this right, it needs to be residual. I wouldn't do it on a flat per referral basis.
Example
UserA refers UserB to BitUSD. UserB downloads the wallet and registers his account name to the blockchain with UserAs referral code.
-The referral code can be the users account name that referred you.
-UserA is logged in the blockchain as having referred UserB.
UserB uses the BitUSD wallet and makes 100 BTSX worth of yield.
UserA is rewarded 50% (or whatever) of said yield every 10,000 blocks.
Manipulation
There's nothing preventing UserA from also being UserB. This is true. It's also not a problem. From the networks perspective, it doesn't matter who is being paid; only that the DAC is generating revenue. If a savvy user wants to refer himself and save money on fees, let him. However, to discourage this behaviour, traditional referral programs require 5 - 10 unique referrals before a payout is made for the first time. True manipulation is impossible because all referrals have to be generating revenue for the DAC.
Tracking
DO NOT OVER COMPLICATE TRACKING. Use a simple referral code system that links up UserA and UserB in the blockchain when the user is registering his account in the wallet. Like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ng7q0ih.jpg)
Make it so each referrer pays for the referee to register his account name to the blockchain. This way, users won't have to come to the forums and request 0.5 BTSX be sent to their account so they can send funds over from Bter. The more problems you can solve at once, the better!
Make it so each referrer pays for the referee to register his account name to the blockchain. This way, users won't have to come to the forums and request 0.5 BTSX be sent to their account so they can send funds over from Bter. The more problems you can solve at once, the better!
OK OK I missed the free - rider problem (but I promised it is likely a dumb question, to begin with)...Maybe I have had too much cool-aid already today. :)
So, be prepared for a dumb question/statement...
Where is the inflation caming into play in all this... The development team believes in this (it seams)... I for one am ready to donate (fund) such effort (so I guess a lot of people will also)... So if it is set as a referral program (of kinds) a lot of non-inflationary BTSX should come into this.
PS
On a side note - BM can you please spread the good news a bit. Some of our hears might not survive such extreme emotional excitement, coming in short intervals.... :)
A funding program of sorts makes a lot of sense... though there is the free-riders problem where those that don't contribute benefit more than those who do... those who do contribute of course still see a greater return....
Anyway... these are just ideas of what is possible and what I am working toward.
In February 2014 it was estimated that at most 500,000 people actually own Bitcoin... that means that Bitcoin has a market cap of $10,000 per unique user....
If you could buy users for $200 each and the same network-effect rules applied then you could reach the size of Bitcoin's user base for a total of $100 million dollars.
Suppose there was a way to identify a unique user...
Suppose there was a way to pay a pre-paid credit card with BitUSD...
Suppose there was a way to track referrals for people who sign up to use this pre-paid card...
Suppose you gave everyone 10% cash back when they pay their pre-paid card with BitUSD (limit $100 off)
Suppose you gave everyone who referred them a matching cash bonus limit $100 per referral.
Net result: users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD...
Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100...
In the process users have achieved the following:
1) learned how to buy BitUSD and created accounts with various institutions
2) learned how to download and use our wallet..
3) learned how incredible the yield on BitUSD is...
4) learned how easy it is for them to spend their BitUSD via a normal credit card...
What percent of these users hang around and put more money into the ecosystem? Do you think BTSX market cap goes up by $100 million dollars?
For $1 million dollars you could purchase 5,000 users... who must put $5,000,000 into BitUSD prior to spending it to earn $1 million dollars. This would boost the market cap of BTSX by $15,000,000 via the BitUSD multiple alone.... now suppose a fraction of those new users decide to stay and earn interest on USD, etc, etc... they bring in their savings....
This would be the marketing strategy that could easily pay for itself...... It would have to grow the market cap of BTSX by $50-$100 million for the development fund to break even funding it.
Suppose we had Bitcoin level inflation (10% per year)... and we put that toward the referral system... at today's valuation that would buy 30,000 users per year... at the valuation it would quickly grow to $600,000,000 it could buy 300,000 users per year....
If user valuation is even 20% of bitcoin's network effect ratio... that would be $600,000,000.... At this valuation you could spend $60 million per year buying *new* customers with free samples... and have a user base larger than Bitcoin.
So why will this work with BTSX and not our competitors?
1) The user experience is one of 0 volatility
2) The user experience is that of a bank with a check card that earns very high interest rates
3) The user experience is one of names without addresses.
So you see... a bitcoin user would see a foreign currency "what's a bitcoin?" no interest and high volatility.
Our users would see a very familiar system interface with dollars and interest with lower fees...
Yes... this would be game changing... yes... inflation in this case would yield a net gain for shareholders.
Suppose we already were good friends with people offering such a pre-paid card?
Suppose these friends already owned a large percentage of BTSX?
:o
Suppose we already were good friends with people offering such a pre-paid card?
Suppose these friends already owned a large percentage of BTSX?
Sounds like a good idea just one concern.
When does it stop? Is it going to be like a promotional period or until we reach a certain market cap or until btsx catches on and it's no longer needed?
support bm
* Any type of direct payment for user adoption will generate very bad PR
* Any type of direct payment for user adoption will generate very bad PR and possibly some serious "troll fodder" (ie, comparisons to pyramid schemes, etc).
* It just sounds gimmicky.
* ANY inflationary change to the protocol will create serious backlash. Do you think Overstock or Reddit would consider an IPO on the Bitshares platform if they see us changing the protocol “on a whim” and for extremely speculative purposes?
The best way to grow user adoption is to integrate as seamlessly as possible with OTHER cryptos. Trustless and easy exchange of BTSX-BTC, BTSX-DOGE, BTSX-LTC, BTSX-NXT, and other cryptos IN THE CLIENT is the first step. Bitassets solve a different problem, though there could be a conversion of BTC-BitBTC involved. We should think about using trustless multisig transactions for Bitassets that represent other currencies (instead of "lending them" into existence). The lending method is only necessary for non-crypto assets and is actually a step backward for other cryptos. But ultimately, as long as users of other cryptos can use our client without the friction of going through an exchange, we win.
If we could enable users to keep their BTC and to utilize our network and features, we win. I imagine a scenario where you can send and receive Bitcoin seamlessly between the BTSX and Bitcoinqt client. The pitch is that if you like Bitcoin you can keep it, but at the same time you can take advantage of our 10 second transactions and trading features.
* Any type of direct payment for user adoption will generate very bad PR
Be realistic. At the end of the day, this is a business. It will only succeed by growing. It will only grow by attracting new people. Marketing helps us reach these new people. It may seem a bit crude to calculate the cost of each new user, but if we were just pouring money down a marketing hole, people would start demanding this sort of accounting anyway. Think of it differently if you want, that we are reaching new users, and this is the price of reaching them + getting them interested enough to give BTSX/BitUSD a try. Try it; you'll like it!
I do not want to be too harsh here, but tactics like this are not even close to what is seen as bad business practices... Don't you receive Credit cards offers to get $150-$500, just for signing up and spending $500-$1500, in 3 -6 mo. period? (something that you already do, anyway)
Do you feel offended to get such offers? I know, I am not. The only thing I'm sorry is that I can only sign for one of them at a time....
I do not want to be too harsh here, but tactics like this are not even close to what is seen as bad business practices... Don't you receive Credit cards offers to get $150-$500, just for signing up and spending $500-$1500, in 3 -6 mo. period? (something that you already do, anyway)
Do you feel offended to get such offers? I know, I am not. The only thing I'm sorry is that I can only sign for one of them at a time....
I have two objections to this and you only addressed one of them. My first point is that giving away money to users is probably ineffective and gimmicky. My second point is that hard forking the protocol to increase supply for something as speculative as direct marketing may lead to a short term bump in users, but will spook serious investors and big money (ie, the Overstocks of the world). Really you have to ask yourself what type of users and what type of money you want to attract. Protocol changes and money supply are sacred ground to many people.
Firstly - It is not giving way free money, it is giving money for certain actions performed. As in getting used to the product and spending 1K with it. - read the previous post in the thread.
On the protocol changes I am partly with you... I would not want to see it... but for @10X return... I could be bought for that
... and you cannot?
5. Another level of awesome on top of this is to get a reward for businesses to start accepting bitUSD direct, without the credit card intermediary. If that could be managed somehow that would be awesome.
5. Another level of awesome on top of this is to get a reward for businesses to start accepting bitUSD direct, without the credit card intermediary. If that could be managed somehow that would be awesome.
Yup, next step is to convince some places to accept BitUSD and this debit card.
Oh another important consideration... Do you have to give up your personal details to get the card or is privacy kept in tact. If it is then this would be a huge win and a very unique solution for the crypto world.
I'm not sure what I think about this yet, but my immediate thoughts are not good. We need to think about all the possible implications, be 99% sure it will work, and go over all of the dynamics and economics of it. I think a lot of things could possibly go wrong, it will hurt our image in the cryptocurrency community, and as someone else already mentioned it will give the detractors more ammo to unload on us with.
It could make the rest of the Cryptocoin community look poorly on us as if we will print money at will on a whim. If we do it this once, what's to stop it from happening multiple times?
I have been using the fact BTSX is pretty much the only deflationary Cryptocoin in existence as a selling point. If we are printing money that selling point disappears and anyone that has been saying this looks foolish or like a liar.
If it doesn't work as well as intended it could end up being very expensive advertising, along with all of the other negative side effects as mentioned above. The new users getting free money could just dump it all on the network and it backfire.
It is possible the community could fork after making controversial decisions such as this.
It sounds like there will be some counter-party risks in this. If the printed money is stolen it could be dumped on the market, create a lot of bad press, or be used to attack the network.
I'm not sure what I think about this yet, but my immediate thoughts are not good. We need to think about all the possible implications, be 99% sure it will work, and go over all of the dynamics and economics of it. I think a lot of things could possibly go wrong, it will hurt our image in the cryptocurrency community, and as someone else already mentioned it will give the detractors more ammo to unload on us with.
It could make the rest of the Cryptocoin community look poorly on us as if we will print money at will on a whim. If we do it this once, what's to stop it from happening multiple times?
I have been using the fact BTSX is pretty much the only deflationary Cryptocoin in existence as a selling point. If we are printing money that selling point disappears and anyone that has been saying this looks foolish or like a liar.
If it doesn't work as well as intended it could end up being very expensive advertising, along with Oall of the other negative side effects as mentioned above. The new users getting free money could just dump it all on the market and it backfire on us.
It is possible the community could fork after making controversial decisions such as this.
It sounds like there will be some counter-party risks in this. If the printed money is stolen it could be dumped on the market, create a lot of bad press, or be used to attack the network.
I would consider using some cash to increase interest rate on bitAssets first year or two so as well, it would be a delayed cost that when finally paid would (if all goes well) be trivial.
Marketing btsx as a currency is a mistake. Market it as a virtual company that is raising money to grow.
Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
I would be in favor of inflation for any type of referral program. Call it "market mining" or whatever. As long as it's generating users (who are also bringing more money into the ecosystem) the inflation is totally justifiable. Ultimately, users are what determine the per share value.
EDIT: After further consideration, I'm no longer in favor of debasing the currency because of the precedent it would set. I am, however, supportive of a referral program similar to my original proposal. It's much less gimicky.
So is this a Christmas Present?
There are so many ways to do incredible marketing. Can someone explain the fervent push on all fronts this week to inflate the currencies before ANY marketing campaign AT ALL has launched and the effects thereof can be evaluated?
Brilliant. I love the idea.
Although just curios about your 500k Bitcoin user estimation.
I have heard 5 Mill. With Coinbase having 1.5 million wallets, Blockchain having over 2 million, I think there would be lots more than that.
I'm not sure what I think about this yet, but my immediate thoughts are not good. We need to think about all the possible implications, be 99% sure it will work, and go over all of the dynamics and economics of it. I think a lot of things could possibly go wrong, it will hurt our image in the cryptocurrency community, and as someone else already mentioned it will give the detractors more ammo to unload on us with.
It could make the rest of the Cryptocoin community look poorly on us as if we will print money at will on a whim. If we do it this once, what's to stop it from happening multiple times?
I have been using the fact BTSX is pretty much the only deflationary Cryptocoin in existence as a selling point. If we are printing money that selling point disappears and anyone that has been saying this looks foolish or like a liar.
If it doesn't work as well as intended it could end up being very expensive advertising, along with Oall of the other negative side effects as mentioned above. The new users getting free money could just dump it all on the market and it backfire on us.
Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
1 year in the crypto world is comparable with 10 years or more in other sectors... Don't you have the same feeling?
* Any type of direct payment for user adoption will generate very bad PRAnother very important effort is to sponsor and have a strong presence at Bitcoin conferences (which we are currently doing). Having Dan as a keynote speaker at Inside Bitcoins does more in terms of marketing than anything I can think of. Many people in the Bitcoin community (and especially the shibes) know nothing about the advantages of BTSX. We need short, powerful, and pervasive messaging at these events.
[\quote]
Need to think bigger than this. We need to attract FAR more than the Bitcoin crowd for Bitshares to succeed like it should. This product has far far more potential than you are giving it credit for.
Marketing btsx as a currency is a mistake. Market it as a virtual company that is raising money to grow.
This statement makes a lot of sense to me.
I hope you take into account that if BTSX are diluted then it's going to have a disatrous effect on the perceived network ability to store value.Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
1 year in the crypto world is comparable with 10 years or more in other sectors... Don't you have the same feeling?
I agree with the primary point that "throwing money at the problem" without looking at the "best use of funds" is foolish.
Generally speaking there is a "natural rate of growth" that Bitcoin has adopted... means we will get there in 3 to 5 years absent competition.
I think it all hinges on competition and speed to market. There are so many derivative based solutions on the horizon that we want to grow... there is also the fact that jumpstarting can greatly accelerate your n^2 network effect growth. The first 100,000 users take a lot longer to get than your second 100,000 users.
So obviously everything we do we consider "cost/benefit" and "alternatives" and "opportunity cost".
It is not enough to just look at potential market cap gains by subsidizing new users. We also have to look at opportunity cost. If we need to dilute BTSX shareholder's stake by 50% in order to fund marketing that grows BTSX value by over 100% is it rational to take that approach? It depends on if we could have gotten that kind of growth without needing to spend as much through the dilution.
If we are not strategic about this we may just end up spending a lot of money on marketing and having BTSX market cap grow larger than BTC, but at the cost of too much BTSX inflation. Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
Bytemaster, you shouldn't be seriously considering your proposal until you first:
- Build a stable, user-friendly, lightweight client on major desktop/laptop/mobile platforms.
- Enable important security features such as: cold storage with offline transaction signing, multisig with companies that support it in the style of BitGo, user-friendly ways of setting up the cold storage and paper backups and even splitting and sharing backup keys to trusted friends and family using secret sharing cryptography.
- Get more exchanges in various jurisdictions around the world (especially in the US) that allow direct exchange of Currency/BitCurrency pairs.
- Allow BTSX shareholders to vote on hard inflation rate caps where the threshold of stake approval needs to be above some fixed percentage limit.
Sure, you may think if you can grow the value of BTSX early, I3 will have more money available to spend on developing the above. But in my view your proposal is a complete waste of money (and can actually create a negative effect, reducing user's perception of our product) if you first haven't solved the above points.
I hope you take into account that if BTSX are diluted then it's going to have a disatrous effect on the perceived network ability to store value.Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
1 year in the crypto world is comparable with 10 years or more in other sectors... Don't you have the same feeling?
I agree with the primary point that "throwing money at the problem" without looking at the "best use of funds" is foolish.
Generally speaking there is a "natural rate of growth" that Bitcoin has adopted... means we will get there in 3 to 5 years absent competition.
I think it all hinges on competition and speed to market. There are so many derivative based solutions on the horizon that we want to grow... there is also the fact that jumpstarting can greatly accelerate your n^2 network effect growth. The first 100,000 users take a lot longer to get than your second 100,000 users.
So obviously everything we do we consider "cost/benefit" and "alternatives" and "opportunity cost".
Bitcoin will forever benefit from the mythology of "there will be never more than 21 millions bitcoins" while BitsharesX will get "these guys expand the money supply on a whim in order to win more money".
PoW advocates will have a prime example of why PoS is inferior to PoW to have a money able to store value in the long run like gold is.
I agree it's a social issue. That's mean perception and symbols are important. And not only within the community, but primarily, if growth is the goal, outside it.I hope you take into account that if BTSX are diluted then it's going to have a disatrous effect on the perceived network ability to store value.Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
1 year in the crypto world is comparable with 10 years or more in other sectors... Don't you have the same feeling?
I agree with the primary point that "throwing money at the problem" without looking at the "best use of funds" is foolish.
Generally speaking there is a "natural rate of growth" that Bitcoin has adopted... means we will get there in 3 to 5 years absent competition.
I think it all hinges on competition and speed to market. There are so many derivative based solutions on the horizon that we want to grow... there is also the fact that jumpstarting can greatly accelerate your n^2 network effect growth. The first 100,000 users take a lot longer to get than your second 100,000 users.
So obviously everything we do we consider "cost/benefit" and "alternatives" and "opportunity cost".
Bitcoin will forever benefit from the mythology of "there will be never more than 21 millions bitcoins" while BitsharesX will get "these guys expand the money supply on a whim in order to win more money".
PoW advocates will have a prime example of why PoS is inferior to PoW to have a money able to store value in the long run like gold is.
Well that isn't really a PoW vs PoS issue now is it? It is a community / social issue. Bitcoin developers could turn of PoW and directing mining rewards to development and use PoS while still saying there will never be more than 21 million BTC. It is a matter of what the "developers" + "merchants" + "users" are willing to accept. It is a social issue...
You will also note that for everyone that is a fan of a fixed supply, the fast majority of the population thinks a growing supply of money is necessary. Granted their economics are all wrong, but the principle remains that each network will attract different users.
If there is 10% inflation on a BTSX chain then the "shorts" / "longs" would factor that into their decisions. IE: you don't go short unless you think the network will grow by more than 10% necessary to make money by shorting the dollar. This is what makes BTSX unique.
Referrals helped PayPal get 7 to 10% daily growth, catapulting their user base to over 100 million members. [2]
According to David O Sacks, original COO and product leader of Paypal, Paypal used to literally pay people to invite their friends:
“Initially users just had to sign up, confirm their email address, and add a (unique, authorized) credit card.* The money was simply added to their account.
This was real money. Users could send it to someone else or withdraw it. So it was a real cost to PayPal. We must have spent tens of millions in signup and referral bonuses the first year. (PayPal acquired 1 million users by March 2000 and 5 million by summer 2000.)
The bonuses were gradually phased out, first by reducing them to $5, then by adding more verification hoops (like bank account verification) so they became more difficult to get. Then they were eliminated altogether.”
Referrals turned out to yield better marketing ROI than the alternatives.
Once PayPal achieved a critical mass of early adopters they dropped the Refer-A-Friend bonus for regular users, but they kept it for Merchants. They dropped the Merchant bonus too, once they reached their target numbers. [3]
referral-paypal
The last vestigial remnant of Paypal’s referral system.
Here’s an excerpt from Peter Thiel’s CS183 startup class describing how PayPal tried advertising and biz-dev, but ultimately found $20 for each new customer to be the lowest CAC:
PayPal’s big challenge was to get new customers. They tried advertising. It was too expensive. They tried BD deals with big banks. Bureaucratic hilarity ensued. Over ice cream, the
PayPal team reached an important conclusion: BD didn’t work. They needed organic, viral growth. They needed to give people money.
So that’s what they did. New customers got $10 for signing up, and existing ones got $10 for referrals. Growth went exponential, and PayPal wound up paying $20 for each new customer. It felt like things were working and not working at the same time; 7 to 10% daily growth and 100 million users was good. No revenues and an exponentially growing cost structure were not. Things felt a little unstable. PayPal needed buzz so it could raise more capital and continue on. (Ultimately, this worked out. That does not mean it’s the best way to run a company. Indeed, it probably isn’t.)”
If it worked so well, why did they remove it?
An educated guess: Fairly straightforward cost-benefit analysis.
Diminishing returns at (massive) scale. PayPal is a payments system, which is greatly dependent on network effects. The more people use PayPal, the more it becomes worth it to join the bandwagon. Eventually, the number of people using PayPal alone would’ve been incentive enough for new users to sign up, rendering the incentive unnecessary.
Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) begins to exceed Customer Lifetime Value (LTV). Signups are free to do, and so it’s practically a certainty that the system would’ve been gamed by eager opportunists. For any other business, this would’ve turned out really, really ugly. PayPal probably factored in exploitation and misuse into the cost of customer acquisition. Also, when you have MILLIONS of customers, the load on your infrastructure must be unbearably costly.
“It occurs to me now that PayPal is one of the few businesses where you could use a direct financial incentive like that and not have it be an excessively extrinsic incentive to use the site.” – Yishan Wong, early PayPal employee, now CEO of Reddit [source]
What are the implications for regular businesses running referral programs of their own?
For ecommerce businesses, I recommend incentivizing the purchase, not the sharing or signup. If you pay people to share or signup for an account, you’ll end up with loads of shares and signups, but few purchases. Worse still, the high-quality influencers that you want to court will get turned off by the spammy behavior associated with your product. So don’t do that.
Study your costs and benefits very carefully. This is the responsibility of anybody running a business, and you probably shouldn’t outsource it to anybody else. If you make a $20 profit on a product, giving a $10 referral reward is very reasonable for every successful sale. You still profit AND get great marketing. You may be tempted to sacrifice more profits for greater reach, but you may face diminishing returns. You’ll have to study your costs very carefully, and experiment prudently.
Ensure that your product/service is compelling even without any added incentives. This should go without saying!
Referrals worked great for PayPal, but that doesn’t mean your business will flourish if you give away money the way they did.
PayPal was taking hefty risks because it was trying to dominate a ‘winner-takes-all’ market, and there were people willing to finance such risks because of the potential returns.
An effective referral program has to have incentives that are not only substantial but relevant. Specifically, you want to incentivize the customer behavior that makes sense for your business.
Actionable steps to get the most out of your own referral program:
Make sure that your incentives are substantial: People will refer a good product to their friends without incentives, but it’s possible for incentives to be so low as to be insulting, tarnishing what would otherwise have been a gesture of goodwill. As a super-vague rule of thumb, anything less than $5 is usually not worth the trouble for most customers. But it really depends on what you’re selling. If it’s an expensive product, the reward should be proportional.
If possible, make your incentives relevant to your product: Ask yourself, what is the “lifeblood” of your product. For Dropbox, it was storage space. For World of Warcraft, it’s in-game social proof. For PayPal, it’s money. For Freemium games, it’s in-game credit. What about for ecommerce businesses? That’s a challenge for you to solve, as an entrepreneur or marketer.
Remember, referrals aren’t magic. They can only amplify what you already have.
You can’t just create them out of thin air, you need to have a product that people actually want to talk about.
Once you’ve got that, the most you can do is to set things up such that it easier for your delighted customers to share their love for your product with others. That can make all the difference.
I hope you take into account that if BTSX are diluted then it's going to have a disatrous effect on the perceived network ability to store value.
Bitcoin will forever benefit from the mythology "there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins" while BitsharesX will get "these guys expand the money supply on a whim in order to win more money".
PoW advocates will have a prime example of why PoS is inferior to PoW for securing a money able to store value in the long run like gold is.
I hope you take into account that if BTSX are diluted then it's going to have a disatrous effect on the perceived network ability to store value.
Bitcoin will forever benefit from the mythology "there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins" while BitsharesX will get "these guys expand the money supply on a whim in order to win more money".
PoW advocates will have a prime example of why PoS is inferior to PoW for securing a money able to store value in the long run like gold is.
I think if we are going to appeal to a wider audience than crypto community, we don't even need to mention BTSX at all, what needs to be communicated to a regular user is this - you can transact in BitUSD and don't worry about conversion rates, get rebates for the purchases and if you store BitUSD long term you can get much higher yield than your bank can give you on your savings account.
I think if we are going to appeal to a wider audience than crypto community, we don't even need to mention BTSX at all, what needs to be communicated to a regular user is this - you can transact in BitUSD and don't worry about conversion rates, get rebates for the purchases and if you store BitUSD long term you can get much higher yield than your bank can give you on your savings account.
Well that isn't really a PoW vs PoS issue now is it? It is a community / social issue. Bitcoin developers could turn of PoW and directing mining rewards to development and use PoS while still saying there will never be more than 21 million BTC. It is a matter of what the "developers" + "merchants" + "users" are willing to accept. It is a social issue...
Like I said elsewhere, network effect is everything and competitors are able to copy the code + add dilution + buy network effect.
Well that isn't really a PoW vs PoS issue now is it? It is a community / social issue. Bitcoin developers could turn of PoW and directing mining rewards to development and use PoS while still saying there will never be more than 21 million BTC. It is a matter of what the "developers" + "merchants" + "users" are willing to accept. It is a social issue...
Right, so it's about how the community at large perceives the inflation. Bitcoin is called a deflationary currency because it's inflation is set to a known schedule that (apparently) will never be changed. So, to the Bitcoin community, that makes it ok. They also use "fair distribution of coins" to justify mining as well.
For this type of "market mining" to be justified, it has to be set on a predictable, "set in stone" schedule that will never change. As far as referral programs go, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Just base it on what has already proven itself a massively successful model: affiliates.
I mean, there is nothing decentralized or autonomous about this type of referral program. This is basically invictus saying "we're going to opt for a one time inflationary period / loan / whatever in hopes that our bonus attracts users" without asking the question "Is giving a $100 one-time bonus even going to attract the desired demographic?"
Now, if we used 5% inflation per year decreasing by 0.5% over the next 10 years (or whatever formula we think is optimal), to allow any user to refer other people and get paid only if the referee generated revenue, you have a decentralized AND autonomous marketing program that is 1000x more efficient than a debit card bonus because it taps into the collective creativity of our community. It allows for viral, memetic spread.
Well that isn't really a PoW vs PoS issue now is it? It is a community / social issue. Bitcoin developers could turn of PoW and directing mining rewards to development and use PoS while still saying there will never be more than 21 million BTC. It is a matter of what the "developers" + "merchants" + "users" are willing to accept. It is a social issue...
Right, so it's about how the community at large perceives the inflation. Bitcoin is called a deflationary currency because it's inflation is set to a known schedule that (apparently) will never be changed. So, to the Bitcoin community, that makes it ok. They also use "fair distribution of coins" to justify mining as well.
For this type of "market mining" to be justified, it has to be set on a predictable, "set in stone" schedule that will never change. As far as referral programs go, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Just base it on what has already proven itself a massively successful model: affiliates.
I mean, there is nothing decentralized or autonomous about this type of referral program. This is basically invictus saying "we're going to opt for a one time inflationary period / loan / whatever in hopes that our bonus attracts users" without asking the question "Is giving a $100 one-time bonus even going to attract the desired demographic?"
Now, if we used 5% inflation per year decreasing by 0.5% over the next 10 years (or whatever formula we think is optimal), to allow any user to refer other people and get paid only if the referee generated revenue, you have a decentralized AND autonomous marketing program that is 1000x more efficient than a debit card bonus because it taps into the collective creativity of our community. It allows for viral, memetic spread.
A decentralized referral program that cannot be gamed! This requires identity verification to ensure users are unique. My "decentralized" approach to this is to allow delegates to fund campaigns and allow shareholders to vote on delegates based upon their proposed campaign. You have to work with partners to prevent massive fraud like Bitcoin is seeing with the "mining referral model".
A decentralized referral program that cannot be gamed! This requires identity verification to ensure users are unique. My "decentralized" approach to this is to allow delegates to fund campaigns and allow shareholders to vote on delegates based upon their proposed campaign. You have to work with partners to prevent massive fraud like Bitcoin is seeing with the "mining referral model".
A decentralized referral program that cannot be gamed! This requires identity verification to ensure users are unique. My "decentralized" approach to this is to allow delegates to fund campaigns and allow shareholders to vote on delegates based upon their proposed campaign. You have to work with partners to prevent massive fraud like Bitcoin is seeing with the "mining referral model".
Could keyID help us?
Well that isn't really a PoW vs PoS issue now is it? It is a community / social issue. Bitcoin developers could turn of PoW and directing mining rewards to development and use PoS while still saying there will never be more than 21 million BTC. It is a matter of what the "developers" + "merchants" + "users" are willing to accept. It is a social issue...
Right, so it's about how the community at large perceives the inflation. Bitcoin is called a deflationary currency because it's inflation is set to a known schedule that (apparently) will never be changed. So, to the Bitcoin community, that makes it ok. They also use "fair distribution of coins" to justify mining as well.
For this type of "market mining" to be justified, it has to be set on a predictable, "set in stone" schedule that will never change. As far as referral programs go, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Just base it on what has already proven itself a massively successful model: affiliates.
I mean, there is nothing decentralized or autonomous about this type of referral program. This is basically invictus saying "we're going to opt for a one time inflationary period / loan / whatever in hopes that our bonus attracts users" without asking the question "Is giving a $100 one-time bonus even going to attract the desired demographic?"
Now, if we used 5% inflation per year decreasing by 0.5% over the next 10 years (or whatever formula we think is optimal), to allow any user to refer other people and get paid only if the referee generated revenue, you have a decentralized AND autonomous marketing program that is 1000x more efficient than a debit card bonus because it taps into the collective creativity of our community. It allows for viral, memetic spread.
A decentralized referral program that cannot be gamed! This requires identity verification to ensure users are unique. My "decentralized" approach to this is to allow delegates to fund campaigns and allow shareholders to vote on delegates based upon their proposed campaign. You have to work with partners to prevent massive fraud like Bitcoin is seeing with the "mining referral model".
What is the difference between a DAC based affiliate program and a traditional affiliate program? Aside from less advanced tracking, I'm not seeing any technical differences. Commission Junction and Amazon cannot be gamed because if UserA refers UserB, UserB has to buy something for UserA to get a commission. So basically, UserB has to provably generate X revenue for the DAC before UserA qualifies for a payout. This is how all affiliate programs work.
Right.. what is the DAC selling?
How does a DAC prove they bought something?
The closest way to achieve this is to pay interest on BitAssets via dilution...
Right.. what is the DAC selling?
This particular DAC is selling BitAssets and it generates revenue from transaction / market fees incurred by its users.How does a DAC prove they bought something?
So UserA cannot be linked as having referred UserB because of something to do with TITAN?The closest way to achieve this is to pay interest on BitAssets via dilution...
For this particular DAC, the best I can think of is to split yield payments with the referrer and the referee. But... if the system doesn't allow for this (on a technical level) my point is moot.
Correct... at a technical level there is no link.
Correct... at a technical level there is no link.
If I wanted to create a Poker DAC and implement an affiliate program, could the toolkit be modified to "link up" users so commissions on winnings could be paid out? Getting rid of TITAN perhaps...
Correct... at a technical level there is no link.
If I wanted to create a Poker DAC and implement an affiliate program, could the toolkit be modified to "link up" users so commissions on winnings could be paid out? Getting rid of TITAN perhaps...
Yes, absent TITAN each address could link to another address.
I'm not sure what I think about this yet, but my immediate thoughts are not good. We need to think about all the possible implications, be 99% sure it will work, and go over all of the dynamics and economics of it. I think a lot of things could possibly go wrong, it will hurt our image in the cryptocurrency community, and as someone else already mentioned it will give the detractors more ammo to unload on us with.
It could make the rest of the Cryptocoin community look poorly on us as if we will print money at will on a whim. If we do it this once, what's to stop it from happening multiple times?
I have been using the fact BTSX is pretty much the only deflationary Cryptocoin in existence as a selling point. If we are printing money that selling point disappears and anyone that has been saying this looks foolish or like a liar.
If it doesn't work as well as intended it could end up being very expensive advertising, along with Oall of the other negative side effects as mentioned above. The new users getting free money could just dump it all on the market and it backfire on us.
It is possible the community could fork after making controversial decisions such as this.
It sounds like there will be some counter-party risks in this. If the printed money is stolen it could be dumped on the market, create a lot of bad press, or be used to attack the network.
These are all very good points. If we can print money on a whim now, what's stopping us from debasing the currency further in the future? I'm in favor of a referral program but I think it can be done with fees and not inflation as previously outlined in my first post (my proposal is based on traditional referral programs and is much less gimicky). Perhaps since BitShares X wasn't designed from the start to be market mined with inflation, it can't reasonably be done now.
It's true that in the early stages of bitcoin there was a benefit of POW which is initial coin/software distribution to create a group of early adopters. After 5 years the bitcoin mining no longer helps bring in new users due to the ASIC cost. But we don't have that early benefit which bitcoin did, of creating thousands of early users via mining, so we do need something to compensate for that.
I was staunchly against inflation to pay for extra marketing at first, but byemaster makes a good point about it being analogous to share dilution/capital infusion. However, with pre-IPO share dilution (as far as I know) there is an investor(s) ready to buy a percentage of the company, so that capital infusion is guaranteed. BTSX is already "ipo'd" so any investors wanting to invest can buy in already. There's no capital infusion with inflation, but rather a capital movement from stakeholders to the marketing team (or wherever the newly created BTSX were allocated, how is that decided btw?).
I can't really know whether to be pro-inflation or not without knowing what the current size of the marketing budget is and what the plans are.
...Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
1 year in the crypto world is comparable with 10 years or more in other sectors... Don't you have the same feeling?
I think it all hinges on competition and speed to market. ...
It's true that in the early stages of bitcoin there was a benefit of POW which is initial coin/software distribution to create a group of early adopters. After 5 years the bitcoin mining no longer helps bring in new users due to the ASIC cost. But we don't have that early benefit which bitcoin did, of creating thousands of early users via mining, so we do need something to compensate for that.
I was staunchly against inflation to pay for extra marketing at first, but byemaster makes a good point about it being analogous to share dilution/capital infusion. However, with pre-IPO share dilution (as far as I know) there is an investor(s) ready to buy a percentage of the company, so that capital infusion is guaranteed. BTSX is already "ipo'd" so any investors wanting to invest can buy in already. There's no capital infusion with inflation, but rather a capital movement from stakeholders to the marketing team (or wherever the newly created BTSX were allocated, how is that decided btw?).
I can't really know whether to be pro-inflation or not without knowing what the current size of the marketing budget is and what the plans are.
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
In my opinion it isn't that they can buy different things with BitUSD, it is that they can use BTSX *like a bank* and all banks have checking accounts and savings account. Almost all checking accounts have a "check card".
Then our target market will be merchants... convince them to take BitUSD directly rather than pay 3%... merchants can then share the savings with customers.
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
In my opinion it isn't that they can buy different things with BitUSD, it is that they can use BTSX *like a bank* and all banks have checking accounts and savings account. Almost all checking accounts have a "check card".
Then our target market will be merchants... convince them to take BitUSD directly rather than pay 3%... merchants can then share the savings with customers.
OK two questions......
"Net result: users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?
"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?
I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
Everybody who expresses an interest in the bitcoin search category would get the pitch that this is the best way to get involved in the Honest Robots Global Financial System (or whatever).
To me, use as a currency is icing on the cake. I think point of sale habits will come after there is a large group of people using the system for savings and investment. Trying to be a currency before there is a large base of holders puts the cart before the horse. Get big as a savings account, then add checking.
BitShares has been historically weak on marketing imo and I think we're even moving into the more harm than good stage here. Our best play may be to get a stable, decentralised client and a good interest system going and let it sell itself.
Looks Good!
However I think the user experience should be improved before presenting BitsharesX in such way.
Client should be polished and market rules finalized (at least temporarily) and clearly explained.
Clearly!
I think if we are going to appeal to a wider audience than crypto community, we don't even need to mention BTSX at all, what needs to be communicated to a regular user is this - you can transact in BitUSD and don't worry about conversion rates, get rebates for the purchases and if you store BitUSD long term you can get much higher yield than your bank can give you on your savings account.+5% +5% +5%
As far as market peg holds and BitAsset yields are higher than inflation, there would be no questions about network's ability to store value.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:26:24 PM by valzav »
guys i think i had a brilliant moment to solve the funding problem, but maybe i am just stupid :)
suppose we have a friend like bytemaster discribed.
suppose we can fund this marketing stunt and everyone has a chance to profit from it.
suppose our friend will make this kind of card available and he gets people interested to buy 1.000 bitUSD for 1.000 USD and with his promise to pay them for using the card 100 bitUSD
his customer will transfer 1.000 USD and he needs to buy 1.000 bitUSD to load the card up.
- he needs a way to change his fiat Dollar in bitUSD, so this is a job maybe Invictus needs to handle
- the friend will send the USD to Invictus and Invictus will load the just opend customer card with 1.000 bitUSD
so far nothing special
but how will Invictus fund the whole operation?
- so Invictus needs 1.000 bitUSD but if they use 1.000 bitUSD of their own funds they will loose a lot of money, because they wanted to hold BTSX for the expected rise
but we have a source of untouched bitUSD - so overhang on SHORTS
at the moment a short can only be done at the feed price. for the marketing stunt we need an option to make it 20% above the feed price.
lets make an example
- Invictus needs for the deal 1.200 bitUSD for the created possible liabilities
- at they moment they could just buy 1.200 bit USD (suppose for 31,5 BTSX ) 37.800 BTSX at the open market
- but Invictus got only 31.500 BTSX worth from the friend
- so now we need a "marketing" SHORT (i suggest as long as the deal works only marketing shorts are accepted) to buy 1.200 bit USD for 31.500 BTSX while the real price is 37.800 BTSX
- the SHORT position will be greated with a "marketing price" of 26.5 BTSX and not on the feedprice of 31.5
- Invictus holds now 1.200 bitUSD and can easily fund the liabilities without risk
- done
Assumptions
- Invictus finds a solution for the fake user problem (maybe it is possible to create a new kind of account. If Invictus pays 1.000 bitUSD on this account, the account will be granted 100 bitUSD via spending. Like yield?)
- same problem is with our "friend" it needs to be a reliable source, because we could easily fund with this way his entry into BTSX and not the entry of many.
- SHORTS are willing to create with this discount, and in the beginning we had this problem, because anyone was really bullish, now with this bullish mind set you can support BTSX with only loosing 5 BTSX each created bitUSD. Would a SHORTER be willing to do it? I think yes, because from the created buying pressure BTSX will rise in value and the short will easily cover his position with a profit.
- for this kind of short no time restrictions wanted
I think this could be a solution for the egg and the hen problem and it is a really win- win situation.
At the moment we have only the problem that we have not many who are willing to buying bitUSD from the creators the shorts. Now we match them and the SHORT creators are willing to go into risk, but say will profit from the rise of BTSX big time.
what do you think?
guys i think i had a brilliant moment to solve the funding problem, but maybe i am just stupid :)
suppose we have a friend like bytemaster discribed.
suppose we can fund this marketing stunt and everyone has a chance to profit from it.
suppose our friend will make this kind of card available and he gets people interested to buy 1.000 bitUSD for 1.000 USD and with his promise to pay them for using the card 100 bitUSD
his customer will transfer 1.000 USD and he needs to buy 1.000 bitUSD to load the card up.
- he needs a way to change his fiat Dollar in bitUSD, so this is a job maybe Invictus needs to handle
- the friend will send the USD to Invictus and Invictus will load the just opend customer card with 1.000 bitUSD
so far nothing special
but how will Invictus fund the whole operation?
- so Invictus needs 1.000 bitUSD but if they use 1.000 bitUSD of their own funds they will loose a lot of money, because they wanted to hold BTSX for the expected rise
but we have a source of untouched bitUSD - so overhang on SHORTS
at the moment a short can only be done at the feed price. for the marketing stunt we need an option to make it 20% above the feed price.
lets make an example
- Invictus needs for the deal 1.200 bitUSD for the created possible liabilities
- at they moment they could just buy 1.200 bit USD (suppose for 31,5 BTSX ) 37.800 BTSX at the open market
- but Invictus got only 31.500 BTSX worth from the friend
- so now we need a "marketing" SHORT (i suggest as long as the deal works only marketing shorts are accepted) to buy 1.200 bit USD for 31.500 BTSX while the real price is 37.800 BTSX
- the SHORT position will be greated with a "marketing price" of 26.5 BTSX and not on the feedprice of 31.5
- Invictus holds now 1.200 bitUSD and can easily fund the liabilities without risk
- done
Assumptions
- Invictus finds a solution for the fake user problem (maybe it is possible to create a new kind of account. If Invictus pays 1.000 bitUSD on this account, the account will be granted 100 bitUSD via spending. Like yield?)
- same problem is with our "friend" it needs to be a reliable source, because we could easily fund with this way his entry into BTSX and not the entry of many.
- SHORTS are willing to create with this discount, and in the beginning we had this problem, because anyone was really bullish, now with this bullish mind set you can support BTSX with only loosing 5 BTSX each created bitUSD. Would a SHORTER be willing to do it? I think yes, because from the created buying pressure BTSX will rise in value and the short will easily cover his position with a profit.
- for this kind of short no time restrictions wanted
I think this could be a solution for the egg and the hen problem and it is a really win- win situation.
At the moment we have only the problem that we have not many who are willing to buying bitUSD from the creators the shorts. Now we match them and the SHORT creators are willing to go into risk, but say will profit from the rise of BTSX big time.
what do you think?
wow - got total ignored. so this idea is bad? no, comments? and i thought i found the holy grail :D
Suppose you could pay a *CREDIT CARD BILL* with BitUSD......
Suppose you could have Bill Pay mail a check to someone... with BitUSD...
Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?
Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?
Bytemaster, you shouldn't be seriously considering your proposal until you first:
- Build a stable, user-friendly, lightweight client on major desktop/laptop/mobile platforms.
- Enable important security features such as: cold storage with offline transaction signing, multisig with companies that support it in the style of BitGo, user-friendly ways of setting up the cold storage and paper backups and even splitting and sharing backup keys to trusted friends and family using secret sharing cryptography.
- Get more exchanges in various jurisdictions around the world (especially in the US) that allow direct exchange of Currency/BitCurrency pairs.
Suppose you could pay a *CREDIT CARD BILL* with BitUSD......
Suppose you could have Bill Pay mail a check to someone... with BitUSD...
Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?
And if you want it funded through dilution you better also put sensible hard caps into the client and ideally allow shareholders to control that cap through majority vote.
This might have scared some away: "- the friend will send the USD to Invictus..."
Don't think Invictus wants to do that. Lots of legalities there.
Can we do the debit card thing without the $100 bonus first?
This and arhag's original seem very valuable considerations to me!Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?
You still haven't addressed the biggest concern from my post:Bytemaster, you shouldn't be seriously considering your proposal until you first:
- Build a stable, user-friendly, lightweight client on major desktop/laptop/mobile platforms.
- Enable important security features such as: cold storage with offline transaction signing, multisig with companies that support it in the style of BitGo, user-friendly ways of setting up the cold storage and paper backups and even splitting and sharing backup keys to trusted friends and family using secret sharing cryptography.
- Get more exchanges in various jurisdictions around the world (especially in the US) that allow direct exchange of Currency/BitCurrency pairs.
Will these all be accomplished BEFORE Q1 2015 or whenever you want to implement this proposal of yours? And if you want it funded through dilution you better also put sensible hard caps into the client and ideally allow shareholders to control that cap through majority vote.
I would of course prefer all the other suggestions I made in my post, but those are less critical to have than the above bullet points before implementing a system like the one you describe in the OP.
Ok so back on topic.I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.
- What sort of demographic would this attract?
- How "sticky" would said demographic be?
- What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?
So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?
In my opinion it isn't that they can buy different things with BitUSD, it is that they can use BTSX *like a bank* and all banks have checking accounts and savings account. Almost all checking accounts have a "check card".
Then our target market will be merchants... convince them to take BitUSD directly rather than pay 3%... merchants can then share the savings with customers.
Can we do the debit card thing without the $100 bonus first?
Suppose you could pay a *CREDIT CARD BILL* with BitUSD......
Suppose you could have Bill Pay mail a check to someone... with BitUSD...
Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?
A working light weight client will help a lot...
Can we do the debit card thing without the $100 bonus first?
+5%
If this is to be done at all it should be done without such a high affiliate commission. The only clear winner in this that I can see is the affiliate marketer who gets a state-of-the-art product to "email market" to their databases. Everyone else takes risk with an unclear benefit, if any.
Finally, at no point can the supply of BTSX exceed 2B shares. Do not inflate and do not mess with the burn.
Inflation in some form may be rationalized on a theoretical level, but the PR nightmare that may result would be catastrophic.
Sure, use some AGS funds to roll out a referral program. If timed right it will pay for itself.
But do not inflate.
guys i think i had a brilliant moment to solve the funding problem, but maybe i am just stupid :)
suppose we have a friend like bytemaster discribed.
suppose we can fund this marketing stunt and everyone has a chance to profit from it.
suppose our friend will make this kind of card available and he gets people interested to buy 1.000 bitUSD for 1.000 USD and with his promise to pay them for using the card 100 bitUSD
his customer will transfer 1.000 USD and he needs to buy 1.000 bitUSD to load the card up.
- he needs a way to change his fiat Dollar in bitUSD, so this is a job maybe Invictus needs to handle
- the friend will send the USD to Invictus and Invictus will load the just opend customer card with 1.000 bitUSD
so far nothing special
but how will Invictus fund the whole operation?
- so Invictus needs 1.000 bitUSD but if they use 1.000 bitUSD of their own funds they will loose a lot of money, because they wanted to hold BTSX for the expected rise
but we have a source of untouched bitUSD - so overhang on SHORTS
at the moment a short can only be done at the feed price. for the marketing stunt we need an option to make it 20% above the feed price.
lets make an example
- Invictus needs for the deal 1.200 bitUSD for the created possible liabilities
- at they moment they could just buy 1.200 bit USD (suppose for 31,5 BTSX ) 37.800 BTSX at the open market
- but Invictus got only 31.500 BTSX worth from the friend
- so now we need a "marketing" SHORT (i suggest as long as the deal works only marketing shorts are accepted) to buy 1.200 bit USD for 31.500 BTSX while the real price is 37.800 BTSX
- the SHORT position will be greated with a "marketing price" of 26.5 BTSX and not on the feedprice of 31.5
- Invictus holds now 1.200 bitUSD and can easily fund the liabilities without risk
- done
Assumptions
- Invictus finds a solution for the fake user problem (maybe it is possible to create a new kind of account. If Invictus pays 1.000 bitUSD on this account, the account will be granted 100 bitUSD via spending. Like yield?)
- same problem is with our "friend" it needs to be a reliable source, because we could easily fund with this way his entry into BTSX and not the entry of many.
- SHORTS are willing to create with this discount, and in the beginning we had this problem, because anyone was really bullish, now with this bullish mind set you can support BTSX with only loosing 5 BTSX each created bitUSD. Would a SHORTER be willing to do it? I think yes, because from the created buying pressure BTSX will rise in value and the short will easily cover his position with a profit.
- for this kind of short no time restrictions wanted
I think this could be a solution for the egg and the hen problem and it is a really win- win situation.
At the moment we have only the problem that we have not many who are willing to buying bitUSD from the creators the shorts. Now we match them and the SHORT creators are willing to go into risk, but say will profit from the rise of BTSX big time.
what do you think?
wow - got total ignored. so this idea is bad? no, comments? and i thought i found the holy grail :D
Finally, at no point can the supply of BTSX exceed 2B shares. Do not inflate and do not mess with the burn.
Inflation in some form may be rationalized on a theoretical level, but the PR nightmare that may result would be catastrophic.
Sure, use some AGS funds to roll out a referral program. If timed right it will pay for itself.
But do not inflate.
Finally, at no point can the supply of BTSX exceed 2B shares. Do not inflate and do not mess with the burn.
Inflation in some form may be rationalized on a theoretical level, but the PR nightmare that may result would be catastrophic.
Sure, use some AGS funds to roll out a referral program. If timed right it will pay for itself.
But do not inflate.
This would be best. Do everything we can to avoid putting the supply of BTSX over 2B shares.
Effectively, for every 1 BTSX burned we could create at most 1 BTSX for dilution purposes.
I like it. But the burn rate is probably too low for a useful dilution?
This is it, this is the moment with the above statement we will have a liquid bitUSD market. If it can be done without going over that 2bill cap it will just make it easier for users to say YES and give more credit to bitsharesX.OK two questions......
"Net result: users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?
"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?
I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.
The cards are funded with BitUSD but spend just like any USD converted at 1:1 no spread. The card service provider would either hold the BitUSD or sell it on the market to get real USD. As the card service provider is earning a fee from merchants they can handle the spread (and/or make the BitUSD market). It would be on the card provider to liquidate the BitUSD and not on the user.
Suppose you could pay a *CREDIT CARD BILL* with BitUSD......
Suppose you're using the word "Suppose " just to hide the fact that this is not fictional but something that's happening :P
Thw problem with concrete limits on dilutions is that there already are: there's no dilution. Our ability to set social consensus disappears forever if we dilute btsx.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Some are looking at this as a subsidy. I look at this as the cost of jump starting the product. I look as BitUSD a bit like an independent business and just as Bitshares had to offer attractive value in the form of future company profits/growth to initial investors in the form of BTS, bitUSD has to also offer value to jump start its business (network effect). As I understand it, the program is not intended to go on into perpetuity, but to be limited to what is necessary to accrue the initial significant base for bitUSD, our main product. If the profit potential holds, and I think it will, its a no-brainer.
THE NETWORK IS EVERYTHING. Its the name of the game. The winners will be the organizations who can build the biggest network the fastest. The superiority of the technology is only a distance 2nd, so if this will give us that edge then lets do it!
I don’t like the expansion of supply anymore that the next guy, but if it is needed in order to achieve our potential then I’ll accept it.
I keep in mind that BTSX is still experimental and that this is not the first 90 degree pivot we’ve made in our business plan since inception. I recall BM’s change of the funding program from PTS to AGS and also the complete rework on the original security logarithm to the new excellent DPOS. Both of these created a lot of contention at the time, but in retrospect most agree that they were ingenious moves. So given that recored, BM has my support on this. It is Bitshare’s flexibility and willingness to adjust to new information and learnings that is one of our greatest strengths.
However I do think that we need 1) a clear plan 2) clear objectives 3) a precise measure of progress that is openly communicated and 4) quick initial results, in order to keep the BTSX market calm as much as possible about this radical change. Also, I believe before initiation a contingency plan should be in place stating value/time benchmarks for achieving certain goals. If certain early benchmarks are not met, the program can be considered unsuccessful and the remainder of the increased BTS can be redistributed back to the holders at the time of the fork.
Yes.. this is why we don't want to inflate and are actively working on alternatives.
Thw problem with concrete limits on dilutions is that there already are: there's no dilution. Our ability to set social consensus disappears forever if we dilute btsx.
... Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. ...OK two questions......
"Net result: users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?
"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?
I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.
The cards are funded with BitUSD but spend just like any USD converted at 1:1 no spread. The card service provider would either hold the BitUSD or sell it on the market to get real USD. As the card service provider is earning a fee from merchants they can handle the spread (and/or make the BitUSD market). It would be on the card provider to liquidate the BitUSD and not on the user.
Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken...
This is it, this is the moment with the above statement we will have a liquid bitUSD market. If it can be done without going over that 2bill cap it will just make it easier for users to say YES and give more credit to bitsharesX.OK two questions......
"Net result: users buy $1,000 worth of BitUSD and spends it via the pre-paid card earns $100...assuming a referral they buy $1000 worth of BitUSD and cost $200 worth of USD... "
1. These pre-paid cards, are they bitUSD or USD? If its bitUSD where can they spend it?
"Users who recommend 10 people who and buy and spend $1000 worth of BitUSD will earn $1100..."
2.Whats the point of giving bitUSD away in any amount when it can not be traded directly for fiat and no merchants accept it. Yes I know you can use it to buy btsx which has value(the platform), but isn't the goal to give the assets themselves value?
I am very very leery of adjusting the supply of btsx because as other users mentioned it sets a dangerous precedent.
The cards are funded with BitUSD but spend just like any USD converted at 1:1 no spread. The card service provider would either hold the BitUSD or sell it on the market to get real USD. As the card service provider is earning a fee from merchants they can handle the spread (and/or make the BitUSD market). It would be on the card provider to liquidate the BitUSD and not on the user.
Also please don't think KYC is going to stop gaming of a referral system, that would just be naive and I know you guys are smarter then that. I like the referral idea as it is a tried and true method that works. Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. I personally think 100$ is a bit steep perhaps a 50$ or use some kind of tiered system based off the deposit amount.
Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken. Bitcoin has paved the road for many alts and thus I believe adoption can come much easier and quicker if developers can keep up.
Lastly tell me you will put a fiat-on ramp in please before* you would launch the above. I would hate to see users have to drop through the hoop of buying bitcoin just to get into btsx and bitUSD.
This is it, this is the moment with the above statement we will have a liquid bitUSD market. If it can be done without going over that 2bill cap it will just make it easier for users to say YES and give more credit to bitsharesX.
Also please don't think KYC is going to stop gaming of a referral system, that would just be naive and I know you guys are smarter then that. I like the referral idea as it is a tried and true method that works. Banks, brokers, exchanges have been offering free money, with success to gain a expand a user base. I personally think 100$ is a bit steep perhaps a 50$ or use some kind of tiered system based off the deposit amount.
Speed seems to be a factor of late, many alts seem to be adopting bitsharesX ideas. I dont think devs will be afforded the same time line bitcoin adoption/development has taken. Bitcoin has paved the road for many alts and thus I believe adoption can come much easier and quicker if developers can keep up.
Lastly tell me you will put a fiat-on ramp in please before* you would launch the above. I would hate to see users have to drop through the hoop of buying bitcoin just to get into btsx and bitUSD.
Effectively, for every 1 BTSX burned we could create at most 1 BTSX for dilution purposes.
I like it. But the burn rate is probably too low for a useful dilution?
Yeah, burn rate is too low for it to be more than a piece of the needed funding. But it might be able to be one source of funding, while other money comes from other sources.
My order of preference is:
1) Marketing campaign gets funded in some way, BTSX supply doesn't increase above 2B.
2) Marketing campaign gets funded, BTSX supply does increase above 2B. (By a known fixed amount that is reasonable).
3) Marketing campaign doesnt get funded.
Bytemaster's ideas are very exciting and this should happen in some form, imo. If we can avoid dilution that is preferable, if we cant then it is still worth doing.
Effectively, for every 1 BTSX burned we could create at most 1 BTSX for dilution purposes.
I like it. But the burn rate is probably too low for a useful dilution?
Yeah, burn rate is too low for it to be more than a piece of the needed funding. But it might be able to be one source of funding, while other money comes from other sources.
My order of preference is:
1) Marketing campaign gets funded in some way, BTSX supply doesn't increase above 2B.
2) Marketing campaign gets funded, BTSX supply does increase above 2B. (By a known fixed amount that is reasonable).
3) Marketing campaign doesnt get funded.
Bytemaster's ideas are very exciting and this should happen in some form, imo. If we can avoid dilution that is preferable, if we cant then it is still worth doing.
To be complete, you should rank the following options (shown in unsorted pedagogical order):#5 is precluded by common sense.
- Campaign gets funded in BTSX without dilution.
- Campaign gets funded in BTSX, with limited dilution.
- Do nothing.
- Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors BTSX via snapshot.
- Campaign gets funded in dilutable BTSX clone which honors a competitor via snapshot.
#2 is precluded by frozen consensus.
#3 might lead to #5 by default.
#4 splits the market cap like a PTS snapshot (but everybody gets equal amounts of both).
#1 would need to find sufficient funds some other way - is that possible?
At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.
I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.
At first I wasn't sure if this was a good idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
We know that a lot of bitcoiners and altcoiners think btsx is a "crapcoin" and a ponzi scheme. So why do we really care what they say about us diluting btsx? Many of them are set in stone and won't "convert". This is why they aren't a target demographic for btsx. Our time, money and energy should be focused on people outside the crypto sphere. Those people don't care how it works, but if it works.
I think as long as this is well thought out and all other options are exhausted that we should go for it.Kind of reminds me of the famous five monkeys experiment.
Nobody in those communities is willing to go for the bananas any more
but no one remembers why.;)(http://blog2.id.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Monkeys-300x199.jpg)
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place (http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place)
A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
+5%
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
Anyway, My 2 cents.
1. While dilution has its own concerns, I think the counter opinions trump it.
a) We need to go hard or go home, or someone else will come and blow our space up. We don't want to be 2nd best in the space that we (I use that term generously... more like you) invented. My experience is it is common for technologists to think great products sell themselves. They never do in reality. Money for marketing needs to come from somewhere. Be it dilution, dev funds, or other. So you need to have a strategy for it no matter what the proposed marketing plan is... Be it referral program or other. So what is BTSX's strategy for funding marketing? You have to have one or you are toast to someone who does.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
...
a) We need to go hard or go home, or someone else will come and blow our space up. We don't want to be 2nd best in the space that we (I use that term generously... more like you) invented. ...
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
There are two issues at play here:
1) Should we issue more shares to fund marketing.
2) Is a $100 debit card bonus a worthwhile use of capital.
I see a lot of discussion on the merits of issuing new shares but almost nothing related to #2.
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
There are two issues at play here:
1) Should we issue more shares to fund marketing.
2) Is a $100 debit card bonus a worthwhile use of capital.
I see a lot of discussion on the merits of issuing new shares but almost nothing related to #2.
...
a) We need to go hard or go home, or someone else will come and blow our space up. We don't want to be 2nd best in the space that we (I use that term generously... more like you) invented. ...
+5%
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
Thank you OldMan! An insightful voice of clarity and reason!
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
There are two issues at play here:
1) Should we issue more shares to fund marketing.
2) Is a $100 debit card bonus a worthwhile use of capital.
I see a lot of discussion on the merits of issuing new shares but almost nothing related to #2.
[\quote]
I think that a part of the problem is one that has been talked about a lot, which is that we simply do not have a clear marketing strategy and a proven team in place to execute it that gives us the warm fuzzy feeling of achievement and progress like we get when it comes to other areas like technology and economics within the Bitshares ecosystem. One that is able to harness the power and intellect of this passionate and intelligent community.
Imagine that we are 11 pages in to arguably the most important "marketing" thread in some time, and as usual it is only our work-horse heros Dan and Stan weighing in on the "executive" level. Aren't people being paid to work and think about these topics?
I believe the situation all of the sudden seems dire and drastic because we don't see incremental marketing achievements or leaders that we can point to, discuss, collaborate with and rally around.
The good news is that we don't need a multi-million dollar solution to solve the problem..today. The idea of an affiliate program is a step in the right direction, but I can tell from the $100 proposed affiliate commission already that it is going to be abused by spammers and "affiliate marketers" and has the potential to do a lot of PR damage in the hands of the wrong people.
The main issue I see is that earlier in this thread BM stated that the topics discussed in the this thread were independent of all other marketing efforts and the people currently working on Bitshares marketing. Please correct me if I am wrong here but that is what I understood. So, if that is correct who is in charge of arguably the most important marketing campaign to date then?
I believe it is a mistake to first try raising millions of dollars for an unproven strategy and campaign. The first and necessary step is to analyze what marketing efforts are being employed and paid for up until now and analyze them. By that I mean analyzed by a third party proven expert so we don't get the usual responses: "He or she is great and working hard, let's support them; let's wait until there is a product; we are focused on the masses" type of commentary, which is not analysis. We need cold analysis based on traffic logs, user activity, accounting and budget review from PROVEN marketing people that are tasked with a deadline and then reporting results to the community. More importantly there needs to be the willingness from I3 to take an honest look at the budget spent thus far the real results it has achieved.
You can run an entire online and social marketing COMPANY today with the tools and resources that are present in the international market that achieves accountable results and more importantly leverages the community and network that we already have for a fraction of the cost of what is being proposed here.
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
I lot of comments here that are not thought though.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).I have to differ from you here. OB will naturally want to use bitUSD for one reason and thats profit. As soon as a mechrant or buyer gets burned by the falling price of whatever their payment option of choice is they are going to look to stability and they will have bitUSD. Nothing is worse then a merchant counting his profit only to see a market flash crash or a buyer who jumps over the hurdles of turning fiat digital only to find that his purchase is 50$ but he chose to buy (fill in btc or any alt) and whoops I only now have 48$.
Aaack! My apologies. I accidentally hit "modify" not "quote" and messed up this post.
Context is preserved in subsequent posts.
Stan
I lot of comments here that are not thought though.
The irony is killing me :P
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).I have to differ from you here. OB will naturally want to use bitUSD for one reason and thats profit. As soon as a mechrant or buyer gets burned by the falling price of whatever their payment option of choice is they are going to look to stability and they will have bitUSD. Nothing is worse then a merchant counting his profit only to see a market flash crash or a buyer who jumps over the hurdles of turning fiat digital only to find that his purchase is 50$ but he chose to buy (fill in btc or any alt) and whoops I only now have 48$.
Aaack! My apologies. I accidentally hit "modify" not "quote" and messed up this post.
Context is preserved in subsequent posts.
Stan
I think you are 100% on point that we should be all over OB but I don't think we need to give and or really market to them because they are going to want that stability.
Actually their will be one thing we need to provide and thats depth if we can give them a bank card to go with it great but at the very least we need a 100k(higher the better) buy wall at .96 cents or higher(closer to 1:1 the better) and they will come all on their on.
I was asked a question when talking to a friend(no crypto back round) if he would use a system that gave him a bank card and some free money and he didn't care about titan,bitUSD, or any of the really cool features all he wanted to know is
How much do I have to deposit to open the account and how much do I get?
Where is the card accepted like visa, mastercard etc?
Will it work at atm's?
I think the average consumer isn't going to care and really are going to just want to know the above. Most people just want things to work and thats it......
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
Let bytemaster decide what is the best solution. If you start a voting, half of the people will have no clue what they are doing. I only trust bytemaster. He brought us here and is the captain.
Let bytemaster decide what is the best solution. If you start a voting, half of the people will have no clue what they are doing. I only trust bytemaster. He brought us here and is the captain.+5%
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).I have to differ from you here. OB will naturally want to use bitUSD for one reason and thats profit. As soon as a mechrant or buyer gets burned by the falling price of whatever their payment option of choice is they are going to look to stability and they will have bitUSD. Nothing is worse then a merchant counting his profit only to see a market flash crash or a buyer who jumps over the hurdles of turning fiat digital only to find that his purchase is 50$ but he chose to buy (fill in btc or any alt) and whoops I only now have 48$.
Aaack! My apologies. I accidentally hit "modify" not "quote" and messed up this post.
Context is preserved in subsequent posts.
Stan
I think you are 100% on point that we should be all over OB but I don't think we need to give and or really market to them because they are going to want that stability.
Actually their will be one thing we need to provide and thats depth if we can give them a bank card to go with it great but at the very least we need a 100k(higher the better) buy wall at .96 cents or higher(closer to 1:1 the better) and they will come all on their on.
I was asked a question when talking to a friend(no crypto back round) if he would use a system that gave him a bank card and some free money and he didn't care about titan,bitUSD, or any of the really cool features all he wanted to know is
How much do I have to deposit to open the account and how much do I get?
Where is the card accepted like visa, mastercard etc?
Will it work at atm's?
I think the average consumer isn't going to care and really are going to just want to know the above. Most people just want things to work and thats it......
With the current bleed down in BTC this would be a very opportune time for I3 to do some marketing to OB devs and OB supporters.
Imagine if OB was running on BTC and merchant holdings dropped 50% over a few months? Wow.
This is a simple as:
1. Talk to OB devs
2. Push code
3. News release
Let bytemaster decide what is the best solution. If you start a voting, half of the people will have no clue what they are doing. I only trust bytemaster. He brought us here and is the captain.
Let bytemaster decide what is the best solution. If you start a voting, half of the people will have no clue what they are doing. I only trust bytemaster. He brought us here and is the captain.
I completely agree with this. But do you understand that this proves DPOS is not viable as a self-sufficient system for intelligent consensus?
The "no dilution" folks aren't jumping ship. They just want to see this proposal limited to a hard and fast number. Because they're right; BTSX is supposed to decrease, not increase. I think this dilution will be very limited in scope, but it does need to be defined/capped.
And anybody who is smart will stick with BTSX, not AcmeFork DAC, since AcmeFork DAC will be too rigid. It will not have the business development potential that will now be possible with BTSX. We just need to see a capped limit on the dilution.
The "no dilution" folks aren't jumping ship. They just want to see this proposal limited to a hard and fast number. Because they're right; BTSX is supposed to decrease, not increase. I think this dilution will be very limited in scope, but it does need to be defined/capped.
And anybody who is smart will stick with BTSX, not AcmeFork DAC, since AcmeFork DAC will be too rigid. It will not have the business development potential that will now be possible with BTSX. We just need to see a capped limit on the dilution.
+5%
Edit: and "Dance with the BM that brought you"...
I don't like this focus on marketing. It makes it seem like the BTSX team is desperate for money.
We should be focused entirely on making the system as robust and bug-free as possible. If the pegged assets system works as intended, then the market will speak for itself and users will come on of their own accord.. Trying to draw in new users with big promises should not be a priority, and it makes this whole thing look scammy...
I don't like this focus on marketing. It makes it seem like the BTSX team is desperate for money.
We should be focused entirely on making the system as robust and bug-free as possible. If the pegged assets system works as intended, then the market will speak for itself and users will come on of their own accord.. Trying to draw in new users with big promises should not be a priority, and it makes this whole thing look scammy...
Can someone help to clarify a question: The way I understand it, BTSX will eventually be a fully independent autonomous DAC. That means at some point I3 will no longer be managing the operations. Therefore, the issue regarding dilution for project financing is only valid for the growth/experimental phase of BTSX in which I3 and BM are managing the development decisions because once BTSX is fully mature and released to the wild as a complete autonomous operation there can be no way to manage/control how additional shares will be used. Therefore the proposal for dilution is not an option that will remain indifferently, but is only a option to be used during the ramp-up/initial creation of BTSX. Correct? If is otherwise, I may be totally against it.
I don't like this focus on marketing. It makes it seem like the BTSX team is desperate for money.
We should be focused entirely on making the system as robust and bug-free as possible. If the pegged assets system works as intended, then the market will speak for itself and users will come on of their own accord.. Trying to draw in new users with big promises should not be a priority, and it makes this whole thing look scammy...
IMHO, we do not have the option not to market as we need speed to win the race of network effect. We are no longer in the days of early-bitcoin when know one knew of the technology. The competitors are coming out of the wood work. Also, remember this is open source. It can be forked by anyone at any moment. The technology does not provide a barrier to entry. The network effect will.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd."Open Bazaar announces revolutionary decentralized global marketplace. Sign up today and receive up to $100 bitUSD!"
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.I personally think a $100 is way too much. If we are going to do a $100 then it should be for like 2 weeks or something. Personally I think $50 is a great place to start.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
"Open Bazaar announces revolutionary decentralized global marketplace. Sign up today and receive up to $100 bitUSD!"
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.I personally think a $100 is way too much. If we are going to do a $100 then it should be for like 2 weeks or something. Personally I think $50 is a great place to start.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
"Open Bazaar announces revolutionary decentralized global marketplace. Sign up today and receive up to $100 bitUSD!"
For those not already following, the Open Bazaar comment ties directly to this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0
For me, Open Bazaar plus a referral program sounds like gold.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
For a period of time, Paypal effectively gained a following by offering new users a $10 credit for registering and another $10 for referrals. However, this strategy also burned through its cash reserves pretty quickly. To separate itself from the competition, Paypal had to build and control a proprietary distribution channel that their competitors could not easily detect, much less duplicate.
When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, their marketing team came up with a creative marketing campaign to simulate demand. They created a robot – a script that could spider eBay’s site looking for certain types of auctions – that bid on items and then, insisted on paying for the auction using Paypal.
“Poor distribution, not product, is the number one cause of failure. If you can get even a single distribution channel to work, you have great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished… People say it all the time: this product is so good that it sells itself. This is almost never true. These people are lying, either to themselves, to others, or both. “
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
While I'm not necessarily against issuing more shares to fund marketing (share metaphor vs. coin), I'm against this $100 bonus. It's a complete waste of money and will not lead to the kind of adoption you think it will.
Let's use PayPal's early marketing strategy as a case study.
a) They focused on one marketplace (eBay) to build a real user base.
b) They used bots to simulate demand on eBay.
Here's a summary (source (http://warstory.co/how-paypal-used-robots-to-acquire-users-in-the-early-days/)):QuoteFor a period of time, Paypal effectively gained a following by offering new users a $10 credit for registering and another $10 for referrals. However, this strategy also burned through its cash reserves pretty quickly. To separate itself from the competition, Paypal had to build and control a proprietary distribution channel that their competitors could not easily detect, much less duplicate.
When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, their marketing team came up with a creative marketing campaign to simulate demand. They created a robot – a script that could spider eBay’s site looking for certain types of auctions – that bid on items and then, insisted on paying for the auction using Paypal.
Here's a quote from Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal:Quote from: Peter Thiel“Poor distribution, not product, is the number one cause of failure. If you can get even a single distribution channel to work, you have great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished… People say it all the time: this product is so good that it sells itself. This is almost never true. These people are lying, either to themselves, to others, or both. “
If I were in charge of marketing strategy at BitShares, I'd focus on a strategic partnership with OpenBazaar. The only users willing to put up with Bitcoins volatility will be drug related users (because they have no other choice); for OpenBazaar to attract "legitimate" users they need a stable crypto for their merchants and users to transact in. They need BitUSD (or NuBits) just as much as BitShares needs ONE solid distribution channel as a catalyst for organic adoption.
a) Focus on making BitUSD easy for merchants to integrate into pre-existing online marketplaces that currently need the product (i.e. OpenBazaar).
b) Seed the marketplace with BitUSD to kickstart the BitUSD economy.
Whichever stable crypto taps into a popular online marketplace first will gain network effect and spread organically from that point on. This is called a "viral insertion point" and is absolutely critical.
Focusing on attracting a "mainstream" audience (that doesn't even need/care about crypto to begin with) in favor of already existing marketplaces that legitimately need our product will be a fatal error.
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
While I'm not necessarily against issuing more shares to fund marketing (share metaphor vs. coin), I'm against this $100 bonus. It's a complete waste of money and will not lead to the kind of adoption you think it will.
Let's use PayPal's early marketing strategy as a case study.
a) They focused on one marketplace (eBay) to build a real user base.
b) They used bots to simulate demand on eBay.
Here's a summary (source (http://warstory.co/how-paypal-used-robots-to-acquire-users-in-the-early-days/)):QuoteFor a period of time, Paypal effectively gained a following by offering new users a $10 credit for registering and another $10 for referrals. However, this strategy also burned through its cash reserves pretty quickly. To separate itself from the competition, Paypal had to build and control a proprietary distribution channel that their competitors could not easily detect, much less duplicate.
When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, their marketing team came up with a creative marketing campaign to simulate demand. They created a robot – a script that could spider eBay’s site looking for certain types of auctions – that bid on items and then, insisted on paying for the auction using Paypal.
Here's a quote from Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal:Quote from: Peter Thiel“Poor distribution, not product, is the number one cause of failure. If you can get even a single distribution channel to work, you have great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished… People say it all the time: this product is so good that it sells itself. This is almost never true. These people are lying, either to themselves, to others, or both. “
If I were in charge of marketing strategy at BitShares, I'd focus on a strategic partnership with OpenBazaar. The only users willing to put up with Bitcoins volatility will be drug related users (because they have no other choice); for OpenBazaar to attract "legitimate" users they need a stable crypto for their merchants and users to transact in. They need BitUSD (or NuBits) just as much as BitShares needs ONE solid distribution channel as a catalyst for organic adoption.
a) Focus on making BitUSD easy for merchants to integrate into pre-existing online marketplaces that currently need the product (i.e. OpenBazaar).
b) Seed the marketplace with BitUSD to kickstart the BitUSD economy.
Whichever stable crypto taps into a popular online marketplace first will gain network effect and spread organically from that point on. This is called a "viral insertion point" and is absolutely critical.
Focusing on attracting a "mainstream" audience (that doesn't even need/care about crypto to begin with) in favor of already existing marketplaces that legitimately need our product will be a fatal error.
But you are for a referral program right? How would you do a referral program plus the OB partnership?
But you are for a referral program right? How would you do a referral program plus the OB partnership?
I'm absolutely for a referral program as long as it can kickstart the BitUSD economy and organically spread to other areas without us doing anything. The referral program being proposed in the OP is basically airdropping BitUSD onto a strategically unimportant demographic. It will likely attract penny pinchers and I don't see it having any catalysing effect on the BitUSD economy. Like you said, a better use of a referral program would be in conjunction with OpenBazaar. So that means either an official partnership or do something similar to what PayPal did (with bots) or manually airdrop BitUSD on their forums with a contest / BitUSD giveaway. An official partnership would be ideal though.
But you are for a referral program right? How would you do a referral program plus the OB partnership?
I'm absolutely for a referral program as long as it can kickstart the BitUSD economy and organically spread to other areas without us doing anything. The referral program being proposed in the OP is basically airdropping BitUSD onto a strategically unimportant demographic. It will likely attract penny pinchers and I don't see it having any catalysing effect on the BitUSD economy. Like you said, a better use of a referral program would be in conjunction with OpenBazaar. So that means either an official partnership or do something similar to what PayPal did (with bots) or manually airdrop BitUSD on their forums with a contest / BitUSD giveaway. An official partnership would be ideal though.
If I understand correctly we need savers so we can offer them very high level of security and reasonably high interest rates. Mainstream audience who have never heard of crypto before is exactly what we need in this case. In order to get savers we need people to go for a test drive and see it for themselves it is real deal. And for this test drive they will need to put $1000 and we will reward them with $100. I maybe wrong about this but PayPal was not looking for savers nor do I think they are looking for the savers now AFAIK they can't offer interest rates that we can.
OB is great idea by the way as Amir and Cody are heroes of mine :)
If I understand correctly we need savers so we can offer them very high level of security and reasonably high interest rates. Mainstream audience who have never heard of crypto before is exactly what we need in this case. In order to get savers we need people to go for a test drive and see it for themselves it is real deal. And for this test drive they will need to put $1000 and we will reward them with $100. I maybe wrong about this but PayPal was not looking for savers nor do I think they are looking for the savers now AFAIK they can't offer interest rates that we can.
OB is great idea by the way as Amir and Cody are heroes of mine :)
Mainstream users won't take a chance on some nebulous and risky "BitUSD". Lets not forget you will also need to spend money on marketing the $1000 + $100 bonus program through traditional channels. Then you need to pay again for the $100 bonus. In practice this will end up on penny pincher websites and the funds will be spent, not saved. This is a strategic waste of money and energy given the plethora of use cases bitcoin failed at and BitUSD is great at. Focus on those use cases first, then move to these type of referral programs.
if openbazaar takes off our entry now is golden for us and them equally - investing in the partners that win the future is key
referral program seems brilliant, now we are thinking execution
The goal of this idea is that no dilution occurs unless a user signs up and first buys 1000 bit usd. Then the dilution is used to purchase bit usd, not sold for real usd.
As long as the referral program is growing there would be no sell pressure at all.
If it works the the users who stick around will provide more than enough new inflow of capital.
While I'm not necessarily against issuing more shares to fund marketing (share metaphor vs. coin), I'm against this $100 bonus. It's a complete waste of money and will not lead to the kind of adoption you think it will.
Let's use PayPal's early marketing strategy as a case study.
a) They focused on one marketplace (eBay) to build a real user base.
b) They used bots to simulate demand on eBay.
Here's a summary (source (http://warstory.co/how-paypal-used-robots-to-acquire-users-in-the-early-days/)):QuoteFor a period of time, Paypal effectively gained a following by offering new users a $10 credit for registering and another $10 for referrals. However, this strategy also burned through its cash reserves pretty quickly. To separate itself from the competition, Paypal had to build and control a proprietary distribution channel that their competitors could not easily detect, much less duplicate.
When Paypal figured that eBay was their key distribution platform, their marketing team came up with a creative marketing campaign to simulate demand. They created a robot – a script that could spider eBay’s site looking for certain types of auctions – that bid on items and then, insisted on paying for the auction using Paypal.
Here's a quote from Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal:Quote from: Peter Thiel“Poor distribution, not product, is the number one cause of failure. If you can get even a single distribution channel to work, you have great business. If you try for several but don’t nail one, you’re finished… People say it all the time: this product is so good that it sells itself. This is almost never true. These people are lying, either to themselves, to others, or both. “
If I were in charge of marketing strategy at BitShares, I'd focus on a strategic partnership with OpenBazaar. The only users willing to put up with Bitcoins volatility will be drug related users (because they have no other choice); for OpenBazaar to attract "legitimate" users they need a stable crypto for their merchants and users to transact in. They need BitUSD (or NuBits) just as much as BitShares needs ONE solid distribution channel as a catalyst for organic adoption.
a) Focus on making BitUSD easy for merchants to integrate into pre-existing online marketplaces that currently need the product (i.e. OpenBazaar).
b) Seed the marketplace with BitUSD to kickstart the BitUSD economy.
Whichever stable crypto taps into a popular online marketplace first will gain network effect and spread organically from that point on. This is called a "viral insertion point" and is absolutely critical.
Focusing on attracting a "mainstream" audience (that doesn't even need/care about crypto to begin with) as opposed to already existing marketplaces that legitimately need our product will be a fatal error.
+5% Made some good points! Maybe we should also approach BitPay (or GoCoin). I'm sure bitUSD could help them to expand their offerings to merchants.
+5% Made some good points! Maybe we should also approach BitPay (or GoCoin). I'm sure bitUSD could help them to expand their offerings to merchants.
Absolutely. Anything Bitcoin can do BitUSD can do better. Leverage that.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Of course their user base is small, they haven't even launched (alpha stage, soon to be public beta). To test OpenBazaar, you have to install and run it through the command line. So, it's obviously only intended for developers and advanced users. Right now, there is a lot of buzz around OpenBazaar and I fully expect it gain network effect very quickly. With BitUSD, OpenBazaar can appeal to a broader demographic of regular users. It's frustrating you don't see the synergistic significance of this.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
+5%Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Walk before you run...
A successful bitUSD implementation will expose Bitshares to a crucial (though perhaps not large) demographic of crypto-enthusiasts, investors and end users.
And let's not forget that OB, if successful, may quickly become one of the largest pools of crypto-users in the world.
If I3 is not willing to fund integration I would contribute to a crowd funding effort.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Walk before you run...
A successful bitUSD implementation will expose Bitshares to a crucial (though perhaps not large) demographic of crypto-enthusiasts, investors and end users.
And let's not forget that OB, if successful, may quickly become one of the largest pools of crypto-users in the world.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Walk before you run...
A successful bitUSD implementation will expose Bitshares to a crucial (though perhaps not large) demographic of crypto-enthusiasts, investors and end users.
And let's not forget that OB, if successful, may quickly become one of the largest pools of crypto-users in the world.
I think bytemaster is saying that when BTSX takes off, even a successful OpenBazaar will pale in comparison. Perhaps we're thinking too small :)
For BTSX to take off, BitUSD needs to gain network effect. To gain network effect, you need a viral insertion point. Once a successful insertion point has been found and seeded, network effect takes on a life of its own, spreading virally to other areas. Snowballing.
The fiat onramps are exactly what we need, and that's precisely what the team is working on.
For BTSX to take off, BitUSD needs to gain network effect. To gain network effect, you need a viral insertion point. Once a successful insertion point has been found and seeded, network effect takes on a life of its own, spreading virally to other areas. Snowballing.
I see where you're coming from, I'm just saying what could be more viral than a decentralized bank with interest higher that can't be beat? The fiat onramps are exactly what we need, and that's precisely what the team is working on.
For BTSX to take off, BitUSD needs to gain network effect. To gain network effect, you need a viral insertion point. Once a successful insertion point has been found and seeded, network effect takes on a life of its own, spreading virally to other areas. Snowballing.
I see where you're coming from, I'm just saying what could be more viral than a decentralized bank with interest higher that can't be beat? The fiat onramps are exactly what we need, and that's precisely what the team is working on.
Open bazaar is great but a small userbase that even if we grab 100% it would be insignificant in the next few years.
Walk before you run...
A successful bitUSD implementation will expose Bitshares to a crucial (though perhaps not large) demographic of crypto-enthusiasts, investors and end users.
And let's not forget that OB, if successful, may quickly become one of the largest pools of crypto-users in the world.
I think bytemaster is saying that when BTSX takes off, even a successful OpenBazaar will pale in comparison. Perhaps we're thinking too small :)
For BTSX to take off, BitUSD needs to gain network effect. To gain network effect, you need a viral insertion point. Once a successful insertion point has been found and seeded, network effect takes on a life of its own, spreading virally to other areas. Snowballing.
Source: I do this for a living.
Low risk, high reward.
I think the community should give I3 a few days to get the hookers and blow through their systems.
If they are still not interested/willing, let's set up an escrow (I nominate MeTHoDx) and find a dev.
Anyone have thoughts on what this would cost?
Are there any forum readers that have the necessary skill set? Toast?
So what do we need to do to get these folks to accept BitUSD?
The beauty of OpenBazaar and it being open, is that you don't really need our consideration to do this, you can start working on it yourself or rally troops to help you with this great idea.
like it was said before, we're still getting things to a beta stage. Ideally the tools needed to work with BitUSD would be so similar to BTC that it'd be a matter of just replacing the blockchain checks for another one depending on the currency specified in the transaction.
It is certainly a possibility and the idea sounds really attractive as a way to get rid of the volatility issue. I've not read a single line about it yet, thanks for bringing it up. Didn't know about BitUSD.
One problem we face by being decentralized is to get shareholders to spend money on development. If I don't know if others will pay the cost, I won't either. With inflation and delegates we have to some extent solved this problem. However, another problem presents itself: If the cost is now and the return is later then shareholders can sell out now and buy back later.
While the first problem is lack of spatial consensus that we all chip in, the second problem is a lack of temporal consensus that we all stick around when spending happens. Perhaps like we solve the spatial problem by modifying the supply we all embody, we can solve the temporal problem by modifying the spending we all have to suffer.
One way is to have delays on the spending, as we have seen in many instances. Another way is to have continuous spending which essentially distributes the spending across time much like inflation distributes the donations across all users. Perhaps optimally, the "cost" of the spending should hit exactly when the return on the spending hits..
One problem we face by being decentralized is to get shareholders to spend money on development. If I don't know if others will pay the cost, I won't either. With inflation and delegates we have to some extent solved this problem. However, another problem presents itself: If the cost is now and the return is later then shareholders can sell out now and buy back later.
While the first problem is lack of spatial consensus that we all chip in, the second problem is a lack of temporal consensus that we all stick around when spending happens. Perhaps like we solve the spatial problem by modifying the supply we all embody, we can solve the temporal problem by modifying the spending we all have to suffer.
One way is to have delays on the spending, as we have seen in many instances. Another way is to have continuous spending which essentially distributes the spending across time much like inflation distributes the donations across all users. Perhaps optimally, the "cost" of the spending should hit exactly when the return on the spending hits..
A good longterm solution to this issue is to implement Workers or Superdels; delegates that do not run servers/sign transactions but have a very high pay rate/burn allocation (budget).
A Worker/Superdel for each business function - Marketing, Legal, Development, etc.
Workers/Superdels spend their allocations to further BTSX interests (marketing campaigns, legal lobbying, new features etc.)
Voted in/out using same mechanisms as current delegates (security delegates).
Short term these business functions are funded from AGS donations; longer term AGS will be exhausted and they will need to be funded from BTSX revenue.
+5% There needs to be something in place to keep these business functions both decentralized and automated. A DAC needs to be constructed like any other business with the critical divisions you mention.
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
Thanks for the bullets, MethodX.
Is this at all related to the credit card that can be paid off with BitUSD proposal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is a "normal" debit card? Will it have a visa or mastercard logo on it? This is not such a simple question when you look into it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card)After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
correct it would be a normal debit card, as far as i understand it.
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
Thanks for the bullets, MethodX.
Is this at all related to the credit card that can be paid off with BitUSD proposal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, it's in response to the bytemasters original post at the beginning of this thread.
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
Thanks for the bullets, MethodX.
Is this at all related to the credit card that can be paid off with BitUSD proposal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, it's in response to the bytemasters original post at the beginning of this thread.
Possible to clarify the difference between the *credit card* and *debit card* proposals?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After talking to bitmarket on the phone earlier I'm no longer against the original proposal. There were a few areas I may have been misunderstanding. Please help clarify them.Am I correct?
- The debit card can be spent anywhere a regular debit card can.
- There is an affiliate program in place to spread this. (If I advertise this program, I'll make $1000 every 10 referrals)
- It will be relatively easy for the prospect to put $1000 on the debit card (conversion rate should be high).
Thanks for the bullets, MethodX.
Is this at all related to the credit card that can be paid off with BitUSD proposal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, it's in response to the bytemasters original post at the beginning of this thread.
Possible to clarify the difference between the *credit card* and *debit card* proposals?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's the part I'm most confused about too. Everyone seems to think tue debit card can be used everywhere but (and maybe I'm just misunderstanding it) Dan has said you use the debit card to pay a credit card. That's why I was critical of this marketing initiative; five layers of complication make for a really hard sell.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9651.0).
4.I love referral programs because they are the least risky form of marketing. You only pay once you have a result. The key is to clearly identify your result so you are happy when you pay. I think Stan's suggestion of being a bank first and later a currency is profound. The goal of the referral is to get people to buy and hold bitUSD.
There are two issues at play here:
1) Should we issue more shares to fund marketing.
2) Is a $100 debit card bonus a worthwhile use of capital.
I see a lot of discussion on the merits of issuing new shares but almost nothing related to #2.
One problem we face by being decentralized is to get shareholders to spend money on development. If I don't know if others will pay the cost, I won't either. With inflation and delegates we have to some extent solved this problem. However, another problem presents itself: If the cost is now and the return is later then shareholders can sell out now and buy back later.
While the first problem is lack of spatial consensus that we all chip in, the second problem is a lack of temporal consensus that we all stick around when spending happens. Perhaps like we solve the spatial problem by modifying the supply we all embody, we can solve the temporal problem by modifying the spending we all have to suffer.
One way is to have delays on the spending, as we have seen in many instances. Another way is to have continuous spending which essentially distributes the spending across time much like inflation distributes the donations across all users. Perhaps optimally, the "cost" of the spending should hit exactly when the return on the spending hits..
A good longterm solution to this issue is to implement Workers or Superdels; delegates that do not run servers/sign transactions but have a very high pay rate/burn allocation (budget).
A Worker/Superdel for each business function - Marketing, Legal, Development, etc.
Workers/Superdels spend their allocations to further BTSX interests (marketing campaigns, legal lobbying, new features etc.)
Voted in/out using same mechanisms as current delegates (security delegates).
Short term these business functions are funded from AGS donations; longer term AGS will be exhausted and they will need to be funded from BTSX revenue.
+5% There needs to be something in place to keep these business functions both decentralized and automated. A DAC needs to be constructed like any other business with the critical divisions you mention.
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/Screenshot23_zpsa53a799c.png) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/Screenshot23_zpsa53a799c.png.html)
Hope to see one of these in the near future ;D
Imagine walking into any store and whipping this out to pay for any goods. Directly linked to any Bitshare account name of choosing, paying only with bitUSD (or any bit*** currency really).
And instead of using a "stored" 4-digit pin to verify the transaction, use Google Authenticator or receive an SMS one time use pass code (depending on what wallet settings you choose).
Or... just scan the QR code.
"Whats in my Wallet?" LOL
Sorry if this has been explained already, but can a bitUSD debit card only be spent in stores that accept bitUSD (i.e., nowhere?) or is the bitUSD sold immediately allowing all merchants to somehow accept it already? Also which countries would it work in?
Sorry if this has been explained already, but can a bitUSD debit card only be spent in stores that accept bitUSD (i.e., nowhere?) or is the bitUSD sold immediately allowing all merchants to somehow accept it already? Also which countries would it work in?
Yeah only stores that accept it I think. However a few weeks ago that was no-one, today they already have
1. 'Jenny's home made Jams' in South Carolina
2. 'Bido' A petrol station in Skagway, Alaska
3. 'Mellow Yellow' A coffee shop & a convenience store in Holland.
4. Unconfirmed (But apparently they're in serious discussions with a doughnut shop in Kenya)
And BitUSD has just started think where they could be by 2016, BitUSD could be accepted in 3-400 places easy I reckon.
I'm kidding :) I think it plugs into some widely accepted network. I'm also interested in the answer to your question but I think it will all be announced as part of a big marketing campaign. Don't know.
Sorry if this has been explained already, but can a bitUSD debit card only be spent in stores that accept bitUSD (i.e., nowhere?) or is the bitUSD sold immediately allowing all merchants to somehow accept it already? Also which countries would it work in?
Sorry if this has been explained already, but can a bitUSD debit card only be spent in stores that accept bitUSD (i.e., nowhere?) or is the bitUSD sold immediately allowing all merchants to somehow accept it already? Also which countries would it work in?
The intent is to work just like a pre-paid debit card with the low fees you expect from BitShares. The merchants don't need to know its not an ordinary bank card. They get USD (or eventually other fiat du jour).
Details are being negotiated. There is much to consider. Your actual mileage may vary (YAMMV). :)
Can it be used globally like a normal VISA or MASTER does ?
The intent is to work just like a pre-paid debit card with the low fees you expect from BitShares. The merchants don't need to know its not an ordinary bank card. They get USD (or eventually other fiat du jour).
Details are being negotiated. There is much to consider. Your actual mileage may vary (YAMMV). :)
Sorry if this has been explained already, but can a bitUSD debit card only be spent in stores that accept bitUSD (i.e., nowhere?) or is the bitUSD sold immediately allowing all merchants to somehow accept it already? Also which countries would it work in?
I will 100% accept bitUSD as a form of payment for any prints purchased.
http://www.clarkography.com/ (http://www.clarkography.com/)
I will 100% accept bitUSD as a form of payment for any prints purchased.
http://www.clarkography.com/ (http://www.clarkography.com/)
Starting yesterday? Cause you know...I have a few bit USD...
Think I'll start a thread of businesses that accept bitUSD. Starting with yours.
Also what about adding your BTSX account name to your site?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/Screenshot23_zpsa53a799c.png) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/Screenshot23_zpsa53a799c.png.html)This gave me a chubby
Hope to see one of these in the near future ;D
Imagine walking into any store and whipping this out to pay for any goods. Directly linked to any Bitshare account name of choosing, paying only with bitUSD (or any bit*** currency really).
And instead of using a "stored" 4-digit pin to verify the transaction, use Google Authenticator or receive an SMS one time use pass code (depending on what wallet settings you choose).
Or... just scan the QR code.
"Whats in my Wallet?" LOL
Also another good reference is lendingclub.com which is basically a p2p lending service.
They had multiple referral programs.
Deposit $2,500 and get $25
Deposit $5,000 and get $50
Deposit $10,000 and get $100
There referral program didn't offer very much for 2 reasons
1. You could earn +10% interest easily
2. At the time of the referral program they had a ~3 year track record
Obviously we will have to have a much high bonus because bitUSD only earns 1.5% and doesn't even have a year long track record.
And maybe for terms and conditions we can do something like if you save $1,000 for 1 year in bitUSD and you get $50 bonus plus ~1.5% interest. And if you refer someone you get an extra $50
Is this still coming to pass?
What would be badass would be if it came with a routing and account number you could give an employer, then you could get paid in bitUSD and spend with bitUSD and be 100% bankfree.
Is this still coming to pass?
What would be badass would be if it came with a routing and account number you could give an employer, then you could get paid in bitUSD and spend with bitUSD and be 100% bankfree.
We are still working this, but we have a lot of moving parts that need to get handled before we can get there.