Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
We also need to get those block sizes down so the wallet will speed up. Right now it's slow as shit and bugs the hell out of me.
Random suggestions:
- Allow BTC and ETH investment or at least BTC deposits that automatically convert to creating BitUSD through BTS.
- 60% sharedrop to BTS holders, let's bring in new blood
- Focus on making the internal exchange more user friendly
- Feature limitation - Let BTS be the experimental features chain, with the internal exchange and a friendly wallet, you have enough tech that blows away most projects
- Adding MT4 integration
It would be interesting what type of reaction a project with BitShares features that focuses on a smaller subset of key features and without any type of existing reputation.
On the above suggestions, perhaps @abit @svk and @monsterer can comment on MT4 integration work?
I like to add to the suggestions:
1) Extend to 60-day crowdfunding. Give investors more time to digest and raise fund.
2) Extend crowd funding to other crypto communities
3) Instead of giving the 10mils cap to exchanges, give the extra dshares to dshares LTM. The bonus is to let LTM members know that they are in the priviledged exclusive club.
4) Have a good simple summary of the benefits the new dshares will bring
5) Please elaborate how the dividend/interest is derived and substained in the long run. Dividend to be limited to crowd-funders and LTMs? Better still, give free LTM to crowdfunders.
6) 3-year maturity sounds good. Like abit mentioned, these share-dropped dshares should be made illiquid (eg can't use for collateral) until maturity.
7) A sufficient notification period for withdrawing bts from exchanges to qualify for sharedrop
And questions:
1) Why choose a value to be 1/7th of BTS? Why not a simple 1:1 bts or other easier calculation/marketing purpose?
2) Part of the community is concerned with (uncontrolled) dilution. State on what circumstances that dshare needs dilution or at least give your thoughts on it
Nasdaq is incentivizing the display of orders for (a) 500 shares at the best bid and 500 shares at the best offer, 30% of the time, and (b) 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best bid and 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best offer, 90% of the time. I don't think we need to specify a minimum number of shares or what % of the time they need to satisfy the above conditions, but perhaps we could simply make the reward proportional to the length of time MMs have orders on the books, the size of the orders, and the distance from the price feed. And maybe we should require that orders be on the book for a minimum period of time, as some have already suggested.
Regardless of his vote - alt is the most productive and beneficial thing that is happening to BTS!!!!
You are mixing short term and long term benefits. It doesn't help much if alt is doing something that creates short term benefits for Bitshares right now if he is at the same time trying to hamper the development of Bitshares and prevent it becoming a succesful DAC.
That's my point.
1.75 value of what? Company shares. O.k. What proof can you show me that the company share is worth anything at all?
I'm not trying to poo poo the ideas here, they are all great. But this is one very big component that hasn't been discussed. Like I said, this is the whole foundation to the whole system. Until this one fact can be determined without a shadow of a doubt, then it's a moot point.
I've read through this whole post, and unless I've missed or over read something; I'm still not seeing how Bts value is derived in this situation. Which is the foundation to the whole system. Essentially your putting the BTS genie back in the bottle and claiming it to be non transferable, thus it can only be accumulated via the sale of a bit asset, that's backed by BTS.why does it have to be outside exchange for the price to be considered valid? Do you think trading on the dex the price is somehow manipulated, not real or what.
So in other words, by locking up bts in this way there is no external metric to value BTS. Yes you can argue the fact that metric is derived from a bitUSD purchase from an external exchange, but how do I know (as an outsider) that if I buy this bitUSD I'm getting the correct value of BTS as backing collateral?
Here's another way to view this...
Let's say Google wants to create Googledollar, and the Google dollar is backed by it's companies share (let's say 20 shares to create its Google dollar).
Then one day a potential Google dollar buyer comes along...
"Hey, I'd like to purchase your Google dollar"...
Google says... "cool, that'll be $1USD for every Google dollar and each Google dollar is backed by 20 Google shares"
Buyer says... "ok, so your company shares are worth 5 cents each?"
Google... "yes they are"
Buyer... "ok, so where did you get that figure from?"
Google... "from the exchange"
Buyer..."hmm, ok. I've never seen your stock on the NYSE?"
Google.... "yes, you're correct. Our stock is only exchanged on our servers located upstairs and we don't allow or shares to be traded elsewhere."
Buyer... "ok, so how can you claim your company stock is worth 5 cents each if it's not being publicly traded, just because you says so due to activate on your internal servers?"
Do you see where I'm getting at?
Tbh, I've thought about this type of set up in the past (locking up BTS in the DeX) but it always boiled down to "what give BTS value?" to justify it as collateral.
So in some way, shape or form... BTS needs to be able to establish its own price, through out side forces, too be justified as collateral backing... Which this system relies on for any of its bit assets.
So if anyone could help me understand any missing components that I'm not taking into consideration I'd appreciate it!
imo what they are doing is plain stupidity and I'm all ears to be convined otherwise.Diluting with a low price is bad, I think that's the point? Sure. But the important question is, what do we do then? We can't just wait for people to come and start trading out of nowhere because they won't. If we want to compete, we need to create incentives.I tried above.
It would be nice to see someone address the original post. It asked a very good question.
What do these anti-dilution people expect to happen?
I'm not arguing about why we shouldn't dilute. I just want to know what should we do then. Wait for the price to go up? If that happens it will be because of a pump and no real demand, which is pretty useless.
I do not claim to know why he is voting against ALL workers. But I am pretty sure he is trying to make a point to people lake you two who are hard to get the point, apparently.
You follow the company line, reconfirm and multiply it by threads like this one. I have a question for you Akado. Do you do this propaganda for free? I think you do. So people can do something for free can't they especially when they believe. Well, while you have chosen to do company propaganda for free, he is doing the most useful thing for BTS for free. [arguably more productive than the devs who have proven to do years of work and have no product] He is doing what you even claim to be impossible - the most active trader on the dex.
Regardless of his vote - alt is the most productive and beneficial thing that is happening to BTS!!!!
lol propaganda? I think I was never the type of doing so. Propaganda was when countless fee threads were made. When people spam each others posts to remove votes from proxy A to B, etc That commentary was completely senseless. Even though I have my own opinion, I always try to understand both sides and not act like a horse with patches on my eyes. I always try to consider all the info and take both sides into account. Like I said, even though I need to emphasize it again, I'm not judging whoever supports no dilution.
I asked a simple question. What comes after no dilution, if that was the case?
While alt is certainly one of the most valuable members in our community, how many alts do you think we have? How many people with the knowledge + willing to do stuff for free can you find? It's a niche within a niche. While it would be preferable to have more productive people with the right skills like him around, the fact we have to face is those kind of members are a rarity.
So that means maybe we should take other measures right? Or are we just going to sit around hoping for more people like that to appear out of thin air? That's my point.
"If Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed." Unfortunately given most the community doesn't have the skills to be as productive as him or other members, the only thing they can do is risking their own money and trying to hire people to do what needs to be done.
Now if some stuff should have already been done and ready previously, that's something for another topic as I too, believe, 2.0 was premature, however, what other choices to we have? Whatever your opinion is, you are either "hostage" by no-dilution and consequently no development or by high market rates charged to this community. There's really not much to chose from. You either pay a lot to get stuff done or you don't and things might not go forward. Hence, me asking what is the plan if the community chooses not to pay for development? I'm not advertising the so called dilution, actually, I'm pretty uncomfortable with this situation because you can only choose one of those two options I mentioned.
That's why - if we choose not to pay for development - I'm asking what's the plan and what can we do to make BitShares better?
It would be nice to see someone address the original post. It asked a very good question.I tried above.
What do these anti-dilution people expect to happen?
Actually they are first before anything else, [using newly issued shares]. I think their income should be there garanteed, regardless of profit.interest-like dividend; shareholders dividend; development fund; reserve fund; *X fund (reserved for something we might come up in the future)Consider witness pay please.
Each of those 4 (the % going to them) are adjustable by the comittie (or direct vote by stakeholders...one day)
Staring parameters(while dShares is young - we do not have much fees and we still have some dev,funds from the kick-starter)
interest-like dividend 1/5; shareholders dividend 4/5; development fund 0%; reserve fund 0%; *X fund 0%
imo what they are doing is plain stupidity and I'm all ears to be convined otherwise.
Diluting with a low price is bad, I think that's the point? Sure. But the important question is, what do we do then? We can't just wait for people to come and start trading out of nowhere because they won't. If we want to compete, we need to create incentives.
I'm not arguing about why we shouldn't dilute. I just want to know what should we do then. Wait for the price to go up? If that happens it will be because of a pump and no real demand, which is pretty useless.
I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.
Why the redacted OP tonyk?
Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.
dexSHARES
I am aware of you choice... Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..
I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.
Advantium
Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.
All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.
