Just to be sure.
Do you mean that MineBitShares could create it's own bitUSD, set the trading fee and profit from the movement of those bitusd inside the system?
Would this allow multiple "versions" of bitUSD for example?
I bet my shirt that arhag will love it! If by 'they publish a feed', you mean 'they determine who provides the feed'.
I personally, do not find this proposal earth shattering and/or extremely good, but not too many objections on my side either. Also I like that it seems not so hard to implement, so why not.
Just to be sure.
Do you mean that MineBitShares could create it's own bitUSD, set the trading fee and profit from the movement of those bitusd inside the system?
Would this allow multiple "versions" of bitUSD for example?
This is a good idea. If you could use your project to gain adoption of your BtiUSD which would have more liquidity than the delegate provided BitUSD then you would profit more and you can turn those profits into growing your operation.
Hypothetical Token D: Distributed Collaborative OrganizationThe purpose and utility of a token in this category is a “membership” in some sort of organization with some rights that are unique to those members. This may or may not include some set of financial incentives that are attached to this membership.
Investment of Money: Token buyers are purchasing the membership with a token of some value.
Common Enterprise: Money raised is pooled but may not be managed by a single entity. Likely horizontalcommonality but not vertical commonality.
Reasonable Expectation of Profit: Purchasers of tokens of this type may or may not purchase in expectation ofprofit, depending on the value of the information.
Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others: It could be the case where the operators of the entity have total control over fund utilization and direction of the entity, such that full control over the entity is exercisable by those putting up the funds, making them effectively managers and/or partners in the success of the entity.
This would necessarily include enough control to fundamentally impact the value of their tokens or the enterprise.
Generally speaking an organization of this type requires some sort of voting mechanism, presumably programmatically enforced via a smart contract system.
Depending on the nature of the organization and the actual control held by people who have
committed capital, “shares” organizations which are structured on the blockchain (commonly referred to as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are likely not to be considered as securities.
I bet my shirt that arhag will love it! If by 'they publish a feed', you mean 'they determine who provides the feed'.
I personally, do not find this proposal earth shattering and/or extremely good, but not too many objections on my side either. Also I like that it seems not so hard to implement, so why not.
You are correct, it is not hard to implement. I was just curious about the relative value of "elected feed producers" vs "self-appointed" producers operating at a profit. This is the equivalent to someone offering the service of being a judge of a prediction market. Is it "decentralized enough" if the judge is a panel and unable to do anything other than publish a result? They could cheat *once* and lose a lifetime of trading fees and it would require massive collusion.
in general i like the idea!
- i see the pegged assets as one of the key features of bitshares, but at the moment we are crippled by lagging feedprices and not to be able to
introduce new ones.
- we could provide much faster new assets in the exchange without consensus (good - consensus needs time!)
- we need a way to help the user to get rid of the "bad" feed providers - something like a reputation system or so (could come later, if this would mean to change a lot in the background)
question:
- so 100 bitUSD can exist in parallel? how will this be possible?
0
- we need a way to help the user to get rid of the "bad" feed providers - something like a reputation system or so (could come later, if this would mean to change a lot in the background)
- It would still use median price from the 1..n feed publishers, right?
- I like that in the current system, I'm supporting the whole network and not a specific private party when I use bitusd
- I think a referral program would provide incentive to promote a single/public MPA
- Multiple competing MPAs could be confusing for storefronts and UX in general
How about starting a distributed collaborative organization similar to what SwarmFund is doing?
.
How about starting a distributed collaborative organization similar to what SwarmFund is doing?
We could then use that legal organization to issue anything we want in a trusted manner.
http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/swarm-advised-that-crowdsale-model-falls-under-securities-laws-launches-distributed-collaborative-organizations/
http://bollier.org/sites/default/files/misc-file-upload/files/DistributedNetworksandtheLaw%20report,%20Swarm-Coin%20Center-Berkman.pdf
http://www.scienceofteamscience.org/2011-sessions-virtual
....
Hello BM
what is the reason you want to change now? is it the current BTA is not good enough ?
I never liked the mixing of platform and asset roles (delegates both doing block verification and price feeds). Theoretically, the roles being performed by the same people centralizes the system (delegates have extra power/responsibility, and little incentive to think creatively about generating diversified feeds, and the market itself was just responding to external inputs the delegates didn't have a direct incentive to perform).
I'd like bitshares to eventually be asset agnostic, thus just a platform of rules people can use however they see fit. It is a blockchain with a specific and powerful set of features. At this point, demonstration of bitUSD and other bitassets are important, but allowing others to implement their own may be the future.
I guess I think of bitshares as http. You can do a lot over http besides websites, and html (bitasset) is separate from but is served over http (bitshares)
I never liked the mixing of platform and asset roles (delegates both doing block verification and price feeds). Theoretically, the roles being performed by the same people centralizes the system (delegates have extra power/responsibility, and little incentive to think creatively about generating diversified feeds, and the market itself was just responding to external inputs the delegates didn't have a direct incentive to perform).
I'd like bitshares to eventually be asset agnostic, thus just a platform of rules people can use however they see fit. It is a blockchain with a specific and powerful set of features. At this point, demonstration of bitUSD and other bitassets are important, but allowing others to implement their own may be the future.
I guess I think of bitshares as http. You can do a lot over http besides websites, and html (bitasset) is separate from but is served over http (bitshares)
I agree with this direction.
How about starting a distributed collaborative organization similar to what SwarmFund is doing?
We could then use that legal organization to issue anything we want in a trusted manner.
http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/swarm-advised-that-crowdsale-model-falls-under-securities-laws-launches-distributed-collaborative-organizations/
http://bollier.org/sites/default/files/misc-file-upload/files/DistributedNetworksandtheLaw%20report,%20Swarm-Coin%20Center-Berkman.pdf
http://www.scienceofteamscience.org/2011-sessions-virtual
....
Great finds luckybit! What is amazing is that they came to many of the same conclusions we ultimately came to. After reading the findings I feel pretty good about AGS:
1) Non Transferrable Asset was considered a strong indicator for not being a security or expecting to profit from it.
2) Being presented as a no-strings-attached donation also negated the expectation of profit.
3) We only promised to use funds to build software that others could use to launch systems.. the software was to be free and open source which supports the lack of expectation of profit.
It is all a gray and subject to interpretations, but from what I could tell everything is this area of law is gray. We are upgrading terminology in our referral system to call everyone members which is also in line with their recommendations.
How about starting a distributed collaborative organization similar to what SwarmFund is doing?
.
I had a dream where some delegates were already working on something similar, even bigger.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.
Thoughts?
Hopefully we get another 80% sale on the price of BitShares with this half hearted announcement, like the last time we tried aligning incentives and promoting growth (the merger announcement).
pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .
Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares" under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .
Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .
By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .
If we're hitting road blocks on something as simply as selling BitUSD and UIA applications , how could we expect to see "you can issue your own pegged asset" advertised ?oh，My brother，You recently like to brag
Who is gonna advertise that ? Without effective advertisement and marketing , how is the genius who can operate a successful pegged asset out there see our message ? Let alone joint this community , create a private pegged asset , then have incentive to advertise the asset .
If somehow you can bring a lot of eye balls to attract people to create private pegged assets ....... hello , if you have the ability to market for such complicated concept , how come you can't market for BitUSD in the first place ?
Long story short :
Because we can't spread the concept A without incentive , so we create a whole new project B and hope the incentive can be self managed . But where is the incentive to promote for this project B and appeal to the right people ? Where is the incentive to promote Project B itself ?
So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.
Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.
In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.
I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?
pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .
Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares" under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .
Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .
By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .
So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.
Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.
In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.
I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?
20 Proven Reasons Why Competition Is Good
http://businessgross.com/2013/01/21/business-competition/
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products. Market cannibalization refers to a situation where a new product "eats" up the sales and demand of an existing product. This can negatively affect both the sales volume and market share of the existing product. Market cannibalization occurs when a new product intrudes on the existing market for the older product, rather than expanding the company's market base. Rather than appealing to a new segment of the market and increasing market share, the new product appeals to the company's current market, resulting in reduced sales and market share for the existing product.
pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .
Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares" under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .
Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .
By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .
Ok, that's the negative views, what about the positive views?
This would be dramatically more successful if a partner with expertise in the field of marketing (financial products) and price feeds would be found? A Bloomberg (like company)? Fidor bank?
So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.
Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.
In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.
I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?
20 Proven Reasons Why Competition Is Good
http://businessgross.com/2013/01/21/business-competition/
You can end up cannibalizing your own customer base and creating a lose-lose situation. Walmart is currently experiencing this problem because they have built many stores too close together.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketcannibilization.aspQuoteThe negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products. Market cannibalization refers to a situation where a new product "eats" up the sales and demand of an existing product. This can negatively affect both the sales volume and market share of the existing product. Market cannibalization occurs when a new product intrudes on the existing market for the older product, rather than expanding the company's market base. Rather than appealing to a new segment of the market and increasing market share, the new product appeals to the company's current market, resulting in reduced sales and market share for the existing product.
If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption.
There needs to be some minimum number of people providing a feed for any asset. And they should not have any incentives to collude.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption.
I feel this experiment has been tried in the past, think eGold. In my untrained opinion, the "manager" in the OP is an Issuer of a security and will be exposed to the full extent of the regulatory enforcement efforts of the pegged asset Issuer.
The BitShares BitUSD is not issued by anyone; it is included as a feature of released P2P software. The market for that pegged asset is between individuals with a protocol supporting their transactions.
Overall I feel the OP introduces too many risks and does not enhance our collaborative community.
Respectfully,
Fox
pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .
Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares" under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .
Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .
By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .
Ok, that's the negative views, what about the positive views?
Imaging the head line :
Today , "JoeLe_USD is the next generation payment system "
Tomorrow , "wildpig_USD is the next generation payment system "
The day after tomorrow , "BM_USD is the next generation payment system " .......
Everyone has incentive to promote their USD .
Users : holy cow , what kind of game are you playing ?
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
There needs to be some minimum number of people providing a feed for any asset. And they should not have any incentives to collude.
If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption.
I feel this experiment has been tried in the past, think eGold. In my untrained opinion, the "manager" in the OP is an Issuer of a security and will be exposed to the full extent of the regulatory enforcement efforts of the pegged asset Issuer.
The BitShares BitUSD is not issued by anyone; it is included as a feature of released P2P software. The market for that pegged asset is between individuals with a protocol supporting their transactions.
Overall I feel the OP introduces too many risks and does not enhance our collaborative community.
Respectfully,
Fox
There needs to be some minimum number of people providing a feed for any asset. And they should not have any incentives to collude.
If it's groups of people instead of people then you reduce the probability of collusion. It's rare for entire groups of people to collude but it's not rare for two people to collude.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
There needs to be some minimum number of people providing a feed for any asset. And they should not have any incentives to collude.
If it's groups of people instead of people then you reduce the probability of collusion. It's rare for entire groups of people to collude but it's not rare for two people to collude.
Yes. It's also not rare for 1 person to pretend to be 10 people.
Yes, and the best marketed/supported one would emerge the winner and gain huge profits from trading fees.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
New BitGold on Bitshares blockchain is part of the team of Bitshares, this BitGold will only compete with other BitGolds and not with Bitshares, the success of any of these BitAssets is also the success for Bitshares and its holders.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
New BitGold on Bitshares blockchain is part of the team of Bitshares, this BitGold will only compete with other BitGolds and not with Bitshares, the success of any of these BitAssets is also the success for Bitshares and its holders.
Imagine on the Dogecoin blockchain, there was no Dogecoin but instead 'Doge1', 'Doge2', 'Doge3' & 'Doge4'. All of them trying to promote themselves to a similar market as Dogecoin used too. The results might be that combined their CAP's might be greater (unlikely because of the way network effect works) but individually they could all be weaker and have no chance of being widely adopted. The only possibly way it could be good, if say 'Doge3' was such a popular, good model that all the other Doge's died and then Doge3 then started competing against Bitcoin. But otherwise distributing your user base among multiple versions of the same product (Like BitGold1, BitGold2, BitGold3 etc.) instead of getting the community and DAC to focus on developing one is probably not advisable.
I think this is a bad idea.
The counterparty risk is too high and it has negative externalities onto people who have not opted into the particular private bitAsset.
A much better way to increase liquidity and collection of fees would be synthetic order books and Minimum Spanning Tree pathfinding between order books on the blockchain itself, similar to how Ripple does it. Arbitrage income could be turned into income for shareholders.
After all, BitShares is technically an advanced FIFO dealer, not an exchange in the traditional sense, we would a dealer want to leave potential arbitrage opportunities up for grabs for non-shareholders?
Agreed. You'd be splitting up the network effect in exchange for an incentive to make markets and advertise your pet asset. But "Dell is now accepting UncleJimbosUSD!" will never be a headline. And it will be confusing. Normal people aren't going to use a currency because you're advertising it.
Guys, you are stuck with the idea of alternative BitUSDs. In this point of time, nobody would even try to compete with the original BitUSD. It just makes no sense.
Instead try to imagine User Pegged Assets as a feature, which enables creation of BitIndexes and BitStocks. Wouldn't this be useful?
I do not like this idea, perhaps it will lead to a ripple-like ecosystem, I don’t think that is the right way for Bitshares.
But I think the rules for issuing pegged assets need some change.
Guys, you are stuck with the idea of alternative BitUSDs. In this point of time, nobody would even try to compete with the original BitUSD. It just makes no sense.
Instead try to imagine User Pegged Assets as a feature, which enables creation of BitIndexes and BitStocks. Wouldn't this be useful?
Where is the wheel of the bike ..........
Is it lack of incentive to promote the bike , or it's really hard and deep labor cost to promote a bike without a wheel ( hence higher customer support cost) ......
Let's not forget someone had huge marketing bonus incentive before .......
Guys, you are stuck with the idea of alternative BitUSDs. In this point of time, nobody would even try to compete with the original BitUSD. It just makes no sense.
Instead try to imagine User Pegged Assets as a feature, which enables creation of BitIndexes and BitStocks. Wouldn't this be useful?
Where is the wheel of the bike ..........
Is it lack of incentive to promote the bike , or it's really hard and deep labor cost to promote a bike without a wheel ( hence higher customer support cost) ......
Let's not forget someone had huge marketing bonus incentive before .......
BitShares does not have a solid product that needs advertising. There is a long list of reasons why people prefer to use VISA, Paypal, Bitfinex, Huobi, Paypal, ApplePay, Square, gold ETFs, etc. more than BitShares. It's not just a chicken and egg problem. Those services have better user interfaces. better leverage/borrowing and lending, advanced order types, working mobile wallets and point-of-sale technology, easier access, etc.
Bitassets provide a yield, sure, and less counterparty risk, but that's not enough. I'm not trying to be negative, but the product isn't finished. It's alpha-stage software that crashes often on two of my machines.
Marketing an unfinished product might actually hurt BitShares. The last thing we need is 1337usd and sexUSD and dozens of crap, failing currencies cluttering the client.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
New BitGold on Bitshares blockchain is part of the team of Bitshares, this BitGold will only compete with other BitGolds and not with Bitshares, the success of any of these BitAssets is also the success for Bitshares and its holders.
Imagine on the Dogecoin blockchain, there was no Dogecoin but instead 'Doge1', 'Doge2', 'Doge3' & 'Doge4'. All of them trying to promote themselves to a similar market as Dogecoin used too. The results might be that combined their CAP's might be greater (unlikely because of the way network effect works) but individually they could all be weaker and have no chance of being widely adopted. The only possibly way it could be good, if say 'Doge3' was such a popular, good model that all the other Doge's died and then Doge3 then started competing against Bitcoin. But otherwise distributing your user base among multiple versions of the same product (Like BitGold1, BitGold2, BitGold3 etc.) instead of getting the community and DAC to focus on one is probably not advisable.
The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent. :)
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
New BitGold on Bitshares blockchain is part of the team of Bitshares, this BitGold will only compete with other BitGolds and not with Bitshares, the success of any of these BitAssets is also the success of Bitshares.
Think about it like how Linux has different repositories and distributions. It's actually the best and only solution. Having different versions of USD would allow the best version to emerge.
Think about it like how Linux has different repositories and distributions. It's actually the best and only solution. Having different versions of USD would allow the best version to emerge.
+5% +5% +5%
Exactly. Think Distrowatch:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
The MARKET decides which ones get mass-adoption. I'm such an agorist.
Just to be sure.
Do you mean that MineBitShares could create it's own bitUSD, set the trading fee and profit from the movement of those bitusd inside the system?
Would this allow multiple "versions" of bitUSD for example?
This is a good idea. If you could use your project to gain adoption of your BtiUSD which would have more liquidity than the delegate provided BitUSD then you would profit more and you can turn those profits into growing your operation.
Yes, and the best marketed/supported one would emerge the winner and gain huge profits from trading fees.
Think about it like how Linux has different repositories and distributions. It's actually the best and only solution. Having different versions of USD would allow the best version to emerge.
+5% +5% +5%
Exactly. Think Distrowatch:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
The MARKET decides which ones get mass-adoption. I'm such an agorist.
Woe. If this happens, Bitshares will be the first use case of cannibalization in crypto-equities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_%28marketing%29
Internal teamwork and cooperation produces MORE VALUE than internal competition. Until this formula is understood, Bitshares will continue to take missteps in Apple-ify themselves. If Bitshares is to retain the company metaphor, then name one company that has succeeded from a pure idealist culture of gamification and market-based darwinism? Great companies are careful to note how each piece and product line works energetically with each other.
I'm saying this not because I am against this idea. I just think there is a strong misconception here. Its the best products and entrepreneurs that bring solutions to market problems that eventually succeed. Not markets themselves creating the best solutions.
I do not like this idea, perhaps it will lead to a ripple-like ecosystem, I don’t think that is the right way for Bitshares.
But I think the rules for issuing pegged assets need some change.
When my newbie butt tries to explain BitShares and bitAssets to people, this is always the #1 point where I stumble. "market-pegged", huh?
Maybe that quoted term itself needs to be better defined, by more nodes, or by a different market mechanism completely.
If delegates publish a USD feed I doubt a 3rd party would enter to compete.
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.Where would the additional budget come from to pay these feed producers?
Wouldnt we just be passing the potato.
It would be extremely expensive for a private party to market the bitAsset product.
And the profits they make from the trading fees would not justify the expenses (exactly what you said before).
The only way I see this working is if an established player in the financial services space offers the bitAsset as another service and leverages their user base.
But how many large established players are leveraging crypto?
Bytemaster agreed with a thought process I had :)Wouldnt we just be passing the potato.
It would be extremely expensive for a private party to market the bitAsset product.
And the profits they make from the trading fees would not justify the expenses (exactly what you said before).
The only way I see this working is if an established player in the financial services space offers the bitAsset as another service and leverages their user base.
But how many large established players are leveraging crypto?
Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
Wouldnt we just be passing the potato.
It would be extremely expensive for a private party to market the bitAsset product.
And the profits they make from the trading fees would not justify the expenses (exactly what you said before).
The only way I see this working is if an established player in the financial services space offers the bitAsset as another service and leverages their user base.
But how many large established players are leveraging crypto?
Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community.
However, the privatized bitAsset idea could circumvent that issue to some extend. I am looking more at this as bitUSD with private fee profits and legally compliant whitelisting. It's a middleground between gateway IOUs and true bitUSD. The more I think about it the more it seems that privatized bitAssets with whitelisting capability + gatways for stocks and bonds + synthetic order books should be V1.0.
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community. Companies are islands of strict non-competition in markets. Think about it, if we are so much pro-market, why are companies command-and-controle structures without any internal markets? It's simple: For a social organization to be a company it needs to leverage information asymmetry, which it then bridges in the open market for profit. DACs don;t have information asymmetry, hence they cannot be companies. At most, they can be community/private utilities.
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community.
I guess being new to Bitshares I got confused with the DAC metaphor in the publicity material. "Corporation" is most often used to signify a business that acts as one unit. Most business's internal market is for talent and operations focused groups that helps the business achieve it goals. Other than that, privatized assets sounds like a fine plan.
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community.
I guess being new to Bitshares I got confused with the DAC metaphor in the publicity material. "Corporation" is most often used to signify a business that acts as one unit. Most business's internal market is for talent and operations focused groups that helps the business achieve it goals. Other than that, privatized assets sounds like a fine plan.
Communities and companies are the same thing. The best ones understand its just a group of people getting together to solve what they think is a fundamental problem in society. At the end of the day each one can be viewed with the same lens. Is Singapore herself a Corporation, Country or a Community? Now the better question, was Singapore better served by understanding it should be run as a Corporation rather than a sovereign nation?
I think the Bitshares community should have a better discussion how to enable privatized bitassets without diluting or even outcompeting what is its core offering-- Bitusd. You guys need to offer more ideas. Stop passively accepting what consensus is saying (or Bytemaster). This proposal even though it offers an answer, the answer itself should lead to many better questions. Should it require a very very high initial fixed cost? A yearly rental fee (I actually like this idea)? Delegate only sponsorship? What other ways can help reduce spam?
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community.
I guess being new to Bitshares I got confused with the DAC metaphor in the publicity material. "Corporation" is most often used to signify a business that acts as one unit. Most business's internal market is for talent and operations focused groups that helps the business achieve it goals. Other than that, privatized assets sounds like a fine plan.
Communities and companies are the same thing. The best ones understand its just a group of people getting together to solve what they think is a fundamental problem in society. At the end of the day each one can be viewed with the same lens. Is Singapore herself a Corporation, Country or a Community? Now the better question, was Singapore better served by understanding it should be run as a Corporation rather than a sovereign nation?
I think the Bitshares community should have a better discussion how to enable privatized bitassets without diluting or even outcompeting what is its core offering-- Bitusd. You guys need to offer more ideas. Stop passively accepting what consensus is saying (or Bytemaster). This proposal even though it offers an answer, the answer itself should lead to many better questions. Should it require a very very high initial fixed cost? A yearly rental fee (I actually like this idea)? Delegate only sponsorship? What other ways can help reduce spam?
Markets exist because it is possible to arbitrate information asymmetry between players. without information asymmetry there cannot be arbitration. Communities which are able to keep information siloed off from the rest of the market can profit from that (e.g. Singapore elite), but open communities cannot. So far DACs can not keep secrets, hence no information asymmetry - no profit beyond technical utility value.
For any DAC to become a real company you need a board of directors which keeps information asymmetry up. I personally lean heavily towards using prediction markets for appointing a board of directors for DACs.
However, if you want the shareholders to decide on everything, then information asymmetry is practically impossible.
IMO allow a new pegged asset to be created which can earn transaction fees / trade fees for its creator, but still require that 51 delegates agree to list it before it becomes active.
That way all these new feeds are essentially voted in by the community, and the best ones still stand a chance to earn some revenue for their creators via collected fees.
Markets exist because it is possible to arbitrate information asymmetry between players. without information asymmetry there cannot be arbitration. Communities which are able to keep information siloed off from the rest of the market can profit from that (e.g. Singapore elite), but open communities cannot. So far DACs can not keep secrets, hence no information asymmetry - no profit beyond technical utility value.
For any DAC to become a real company you need a board of directors which keeps information asymmetry up. I personally lean heavily towards using prediction markets for appointing a board of directors for DACs.
However, if you want the shareholders to decide on everything, then information asymmetry is practically impossible.
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.
This is a great idea.
Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.
This is a great idea.Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2011/09/mind_blown.gif)
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.
This is a great idea.Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2011/09/mind_blown.gif)
It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted. The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets. Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets. Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.
So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed? Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.
Thoughts?
In short, if you want to do this, don't live anywhere near the USA and don't expect to be able to board an airplane any time in the near future. ;)
Other than that it's a great idea!
I agree that voting for feed producers that get paid each time they publish a feed with a minimal interval between feed publishings would incentivize things nicely and keep them separate from delegate responsibilities.
This is a great idea.Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2011/09/mind_blown.gif)
It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted. The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets. Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets. Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.
So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed? Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.
Thoughts?
I am not a lawyer but...
I believe that doing this would consolidate and centralize the market rapidly into the hands of a few well heeled players. The appeal of bitUSD would diminish quickly as any properly incorporated entity with the resources to pull this off would immediately be subject to AML/KYC regulations and would be forced to lock down the bitUSD holdings of anyone the IRS asked them to.
Assuming that they could sustain the compliance burden, they would also find themselves immediately subject to US laws regarding virtual currency & money transmission. http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html (http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html) (click the links labeled Regulation & FactSheet)
If they didn't comply then FinCEN could seize the company's assets globally, pretty much immediately.
Doing it without incorporation, for instance as a DAC would mean that in theory, USA courts would disregard the DAC and treat the players as individuals who were operating a series of sole-props and engaging in a regulated activity (money transmission and investing/banking). 100% of the liability would likely rest with the players severally and I have serious doubts that the USA wouldn't treat everyone in the market under RICO statutes and seize their individual assets and likely their personages.
In short, if you want to do this, don't live anywhere near the USA and don't expect to be able to board an airplane any time in the near future. ;)
Other than that it's a great idea!
It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted. The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets. Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets. Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.
So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed? Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.
Thoughts?
I am not a lawyer but...
I believe that doing this would consolidate and centralize the market rapidly into the hands of a few well heeled players. The appeal of bitUSD would diminish quickly as any properly incorporated entity with the resources to pull this off would immediately be subject to AML/KYC regulations and would be forced to lock down the bitUSD holdings of anyone the IRS asked them to.
Assuming that they could sustain the compliance burden, they would also find themselves immediately subject to US laws regarding virtual currency & money transmission. http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html (http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html) (click the links labeled Regulation & FactSheet)
If they didn't comply then FinCEN could seize the company's assets globally, pretty much immediately.
Doing it without incorporation, for instance as a DAC would mean that in theory, USA courts would disregard the DAC and treat the players as individuals who were operating a series of sole-props and engaging in a regulated activity (money transmission and investing/banking). 100% of the liability would likely rest with the players severally and I have serious doubts that the USA wouldn't treat everyone in the market under RICO statutes and seize their individual assets and likely their personages.
In short, if you want to do this, don't live anywhere near the USA and don't expect to be able to board an airplane any time in the near future. ;)
Other than that it's a great idea!
It seems this will be one of the primary reasons why all privatized bitAssets absolutely require whitelisting. However, because you don't actually issue IOUs backed by actual fiat, I think coinbase-style expansion into more jurisdictions should be a lot faster.
It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created. I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.
Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees. If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.
The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted. The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets. Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets. Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.
So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed? Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.
So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates.
Thoughts?
I am not a lawyer but...
I believe that doing this would consolidate and centralize the market rapidly into the hands of a few well heeled players. The appeal of bitUSD would diminish quickly as any properly incorporated entity with the resources to pull this off would immediately be subject to AML/KYC regulations and would be forced to lock down the bitUSD holdings of anyone the IRS asked them to.
Assuming that they could sustain the compliance burden, they would also find themselves immediately subject to US laws regarding virtual currency & money transmission. http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html (http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html) (click the links labeled Regulation & FactSheet)
If they didn't comply then FinCEN could seize the company's assets globally, pretty much immediately.
Doing it without incorporation, for instance as a DAC would mean that in theory, USA courts would disregard the DAC and treat the players as individuals who were operating a series of sole-props and engaging in a regulated activity (money transmission and investing/banking). 100% of the liability would likely rest with the players severally and I have serious doubts that the USA wouldn't treat everyone in the market under RICO statutes and seize their individual assets and likely their personages.
In short, if you want to do this, don't live anywhere near the USA and don't expect to be able to board an airplane any time in the near future. ;)
Other than that it's a great idea!
It seems this will be one of the primary reasons why all privatized bitAssets absolutely require whitelisting. However, because you don't actually issue IOUs backed by actual fiat, I think coinbase-style expansion into more jurisdictions should be a lot faster.
It depends upon the liability for publishing a PRICE FEED. Ultimately that is all that it comes down to, everything else is the blockchain.
Lawyers know NOTHING. It is like asking a doctor if you should visit a 3rd world country. They will list a million things that could kill you and suggest 1000 precautions that will protect you in some cases but you could still catch something and die.
It almost all boils (pun intended) down to "don't drink the water".... or: "don't issue a security". Publishing a feed is perfectly fine (Yahoo, Google, and a dozen other companies do this... it is public information). That is what you argue if you get sick.
Publishing a feed is perfectly fine (Yahoo, Google, and a dozen other companies do this... it is public information).
Lawyers know NOTHING. It is like asking a doctor if you should visit a 3rd world country. They will list a million things that could kill you and suggest 1000 precautions that will protect you in some cases but you could still catch something and die.
This post makes total sense now that Ripple fines have come out.... and I believe the devs are already working on the implementation!
This post makes total sense now that Ripple fines have come out.... and I believe the devs are already working on the implementation!
You can do with a dot ... SUPER.USDSo if I buy the name SUPER, does that mean I automatically own anything that is SUPER.<X>, or is that an extra cost to get the entire class? How much would this be?
You can do with a dot ... SUPER.USDSo if I buy the name SUPER, does that mean I automatically own anything that is SUPER.<X>, or is that an extra cost to get the entire class? How much would this be?
I suppose anybody else could still buy SUPERB and SUPERB.X, or SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN.X, which are extensions of that label, correct?
Thanks.
(PS These are all just hypothetical examples, clearly)
Other way around - you'd need to own USD to make SUPER.USD
I also think its MOTHER.DAUGHTER .. but honestly an not sureYes asset names work like that, the confusion is due to account names being the other way around, like dev.bitsharesblocks etc.
I also think its MOTHER.DAUGHTER .. but honestly an not sureYes asset names work like that, the confusion is due to account names being the other way around, like dev.bitsharesblocks etc.
OK, so does buying the name SUPER (for example) automatically get you the entire set of names SUPER.<X>?Maybe there is a reference source somebody could point me to that talks about the rules and fees for UIA names?
Do we need the "dot"?
And if the use of a "dot" in the nomenclature is not consistent with the codes used on external exchanges, I assume they can just choose to display it without the "dot" if they are willing to list it?