Quote from: delulo on November 24, 2015, 04:26:15 pm

This is my theory:

Quote from: delulo on November 23, 2015, 03:50:10 pm

In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:

The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.

Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?

The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing

This assumes you frame it as a "royalty" instead of a tenant business renting infrastructure on our "shopping mall" platform. 

When a business based on recruiting new customers (e.g. OpenLedger) moves onto our platform, the system gets 20% and the business gets 80% for life.

When a business based on adding a capital improvement (e.g. stealth transfers) moves onto our platform, should they get anything less?  (Keep in mind, we want that business to continue to be profitable so it can afford to grow that business with new features and promotions.)

If we want to encourage businesses of either type to flock to our platform (growing its network effect and generating fees and attracting users for every other member business) we can't make the rent they must pay too high and certainly not 100% after some period of time.

In the end, charging 20% of earnings for use of our platform seems reasonable and something most investors would view as fair. 

A flat 20% is what we have done for share drops.
A flat 20% is what we have done for referrals.
A flat 20% is probably the right answer for tenant businesses.

If you want to maximize the number of tenant businesses.

No mall is ever going to sign a LIFETIME lease, they would be shutting themselves out of possibilities for no reason. They might as well just sell the property outright. If that's what you're suggesting, fine, but are you sure you want to sell 20% of all stealth tx business for only 45k? We shouldn't consider this in terms of some unspoken tradition - let's keep it to a simple business calculation: lifetime 20% is just a BAD DEAL. Bad, one sided deals where one party is left unhappy only lead to future problems.

The reason we can offer lifetime to affiliates is that there can be unlimited number of them and they only make money by producing users.  A stealth tx monopolist has no incentive to bring users, he can sit back and let others do it.

Wholeheartedly agree with OP. I'll add that if smartcoins/bitassets are proven to work long-term, they may be the last and only method of true ownership.

Nobody really owns his bank account, his stock portfolio nor his cash (try traveling with more than a few grand).

Everyone in this space talks about trustless transacting and permissionless innovation.
How about trustless and permissionless OWNERSHIP?
The end goal of Bitshares is the ability of anyone in the world to store wealth in the cloud, away from prying eyes of his enemies, family, criminals, or governments. The ability to invisibly lock wealth somewhere where it's untouchable and relatively stable, has to be worth so much to so many people, that my head starts to collapse on itself every time I think about it.

Quote from: triox on November 17, 2015, 01:37:47 pm

Quote from: xeroc on November 17, 2015, 12:58:44 pm

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

Are you not providing a service for the BitShares DAC? the job description includes price fees and the corresponding price parameters.
Sorry to say, but with that attitude, I am confident you will be replaced quickly

Yes, but it's supposed to be a technical service, not decision-making one. Shareholders can't be expected to track political/business stances of dozens of witnesses on top of the committee members.

I see this as a serious problem with the governance model. Witnesses shouldn't have the power to set fee structures or market parameters.

.. note that the core exchange rate is in the hands of the WITNESSES and not the committee .. so you need to convince them .. not the committee members ..
still worth a discussion IMHO ..

We are sysadmins, not central bankers. I'll happily provide a feed with a script recommended by the committee or the core developers, but please, don't expect me to make political or business decisions.

I don't know how many of you guys have been here for how long, but the "Decentralized Exchange" thing has been tried on bitshares.org website for a few months before the "2.0" announcement and it didn't work either.

The current iteration of bitshares.org is the best yet. In fact, looking at it again, it's almost perfect, just needs some split testing and small improvements.

For starters, the title claim should to be constantly split tested against alternatives, like "Bitshares 2.0 is a decentralized financial universe"; "Bitshares - cryptofinancial independence" etc.

Secondly, the NASDAQ claim is confusing, untrue and most importantly: countereffective. Do you know what doesn't approach the speed of NASDAQ? The NASDAQ itself and any centralized exchanges that don't have to worry about speed. We are framing ourselves as "almost as good" as this other, established thing - that's a big no no in the marketing realm.
The purpose of informational claims is to invoke certain emotions. The emotion that the NASDAQ line brings, along with implication of inferiority, is automatic distrust and the feeling of being bullshited.

Also, the website should link to a simple USD-only mobile app.

https://localbitcoins.com/forums/#!/general-discussion

Seems the blockchain cannot handle the traffic with this big rally and we're on a go slow, that is the interpretation anyway (I don't really know), but it must be good for BTS as I understand we will not have this problem? We just need people looking at BTS as an better alternative.

This post by a pool operator confirms it. They are seeing a shift to altcoins as a transfer layer for Bitcoin IOUs.

Ok, I'll bite.

One perspective that I find missing from the fee discussion is the one that can be learned from other successful affiliate systems. The one that I'm familiar with was (years ago) POKER. It's very similar to what we are doing in that:
a) users have to pay high fees and pay often
b) users are primarily attracted by 'liquidity' (availability of other players).

So what happened in the online poker scene was that competition between poker rooms was happening not via low fees but via HIGH fees that the rooms shared with affiliates who in turn shared them with users in the form of bonuses and 'rakeback'.

So I expect all Bitshares affiliates to eventually pay users a substantial percentage of their fees back. From the users perspective he won't be paying any fees, he'll be 'getting paid' for using the BitShares network.

You may think that it's basically a wash, but a better cash flow for affiliates translates to much better exposure of the system to the outside world.