i'm still a fan of the 2.0 concept of segregating yield from the smartcoin and enabling it in a bond market. Yield is something that comes from lending money, at risk, to someone else doing something productive with it (the source of ability to repay). Paying yield for simply holding smartcoins without the accompanying lending function is sort of a dead capital concept. with 1.0 i was enamored with the idea and even thought of starting a business channeling savers into bitUSD simply to collect yield, but after a long time thinking about it and seeing lessons learned from 1.0, i think it better to stay on track with the 2.0 plan --pivoting from plans induces uncertainty, less trust in our network.
a bond market is much healthier than simply paying yield for holding smartcoins. both will help with liquidity by boosting demand for our products, but the former enables a lending at risk mechanism rewarded by yield. The borrowed funds can be used for economically productive activities. for instance, if we try my favorite idea of a Bitshares Treasury bill/bond (the system issuing these for our key markets, like USD-BTS), then we have our DAC basically borrowing funds from investors, paying yield with recycled fees from the exchanges (a source of real econ value from our core business), and the DAC can use the proceeds for valuable activities, like paying workers to improve network infrastructure.
That's just the first step. We should ultimately have the flexibility for UIBs in which anyone (ideally businesses) can borrow money by issuing bonds on our DEX.
The liquidity boosting mechanism comes from denominating the debt instruments in smartcoins.
A future business venture would naturally come from crypto banks that take bitUSD (or other) deposits and allocate them to productive activities like UIA, UIB, or Bitshares Treasury offerings, the venture performing some sort of monitoring function for savers.