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.
QuoteGenerally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it. With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).
Until one day you realize that you cannot place or withdraw money from Gox. And another day you realize that if you had a bank account in Cyprus you wouldn't either. And another day maybe you realize that you can't withdraw money from bitstamp either. And another day guess what...You may not be able to withdraw usd from your precious banks in America... But you will always be able to exchange your bitshares bitusd to your music bitusd even if it is not 1:1 always...And you know why? because No One can shut down DACS and your bitusds will always be backed by collateral.Not like the current banking system.
People, especially in the US, take for granted that their Government IOU usd will always be honored. I hope you don't get caught by nasty surprises in the future which imho will be inevitable unless we change our perspective of seeing things. Personally I don't trust my Government to always honor their EUR IOU and that is the reason I am here, just to protect my self from the inevitable.
I feel like this discussion keeps drifting away from the point I've been trying to make.
If we want this ecosystem to expand and encompass the casual user, the marketing effort needs to be clear and focused. By marketing all USD asset pegs generically as BitUSD (regardless of the chain on which they exist), it appears as though it is an attempt to mask the fact that these are in fact different assets with free floating exchange rates to the dollar (albeit with the same peg).
This will confuse people and foster distrust. They must be called what they are: BitsharesMusicUSD and BitsharesUSD.
From the Peertracks FAQ...QuoteWhat is a BitUSD?
This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.
No mention at all that this is not compatible with BitUSD on BitsharesX.
QuoteThere should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD
You do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?
bitstamp usd
krakenusd
bterusd
bankofamericausd
bankofenglandusd
.....
the list is endless...
The only way the different USD listed above are equivalent to BitUSD is if you can move BitUSD between chains.
Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..
What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the samealtcoinbitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..
Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.
Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.
Does no one else agree with me?
I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.
I think this is more of a marketing/messaging problem. If the sole purpose of BitUSD is to eliminate the volatility associated with using the native token of a DAC, then I don't see a big issue with each DAC having it's own internal exchange to allow for BitUSD. But it should be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that BitUSD on Peernotes is not the same as BitUSD on BitsharesX (or the new Bitshares) which is not that same as the BitUSD in any future DAC.
Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..
What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the samealtcoinbitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874
Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.
Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.
So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares.
As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.
I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority.
If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public? Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.
I really like the idea of a snapshotable token (PTS) that allows any third party developer to create a DAC and leverage the BitShares community. That idea is solid and doesn't need to be done away with. It only needs to be simplified: either combine AGS/PTS into one liquid asset on the BitShares exchange or use BTSX (BTS?) as the snapshotable token itself. Want to use the BitShares toolkit and get gain the support and network effect the entire community offers? Snapshot BTS.
It seems we're at a fork between expectations and reality. Hopefully we can merge without conflict
I agree with the 7 problem points in the OP. They need to be resolved. I think this proposal is a step in the right direction.
