It is we the shareholders, and the people who short bitUSD, who would pay for the yield, not the users. Paying out of our own pocket to subsidize a bonus for new bitAsset users in the first few quarters of our existence seems to me common sense business practice. If we don't do it, someone else might, and I have not yet seen any good arguments for why it will not work in attracting more users, only hot emotional air.
Words playing on connotation found so far:
crazy,
ponzi,
drastic,
expensive,
go join nuBits,
controversial,
deceptive,
artificial,
US QE,
scam,
nuts...
This is all FUD, with no real argumentation. Please be civil and reasonable everyone, regardless of your strong feelings on this topic! What really matters is whether or not this works as a marketing scheme to increase market cap and assert dominance mid-term.
There has been plenty of reasonable talk in here. It is very ponzi like. This has been discussed in several posts.
For my own sake, I posted that early on in page 2 of this thread after only 10 people had posted. I agree discussion became much more lucid and reasonable after that point..
The way to see your own bias is if you use biased words in your description: For instance, "bribe." A bribe is not only paying someone to do something you want, but specifically doing so in an illegal way.
This proposal is suggesting we pay people more for holding bitUSD. Where does the money come from? US. We the investors are paying bitUSD users to hold money in our bank. Why are we doing this? To attract users to our system. Simple.
Could we spend the money better in some other way? Perhaps. For instance, referral program for bitUSD is also possible, with 10% back on deposits. Or paying Delegates, etc.
How would we market the fact that we are paying bitUSD users to hold? Call it a promotional campaign, a way of compensating pioneering bitUSD users for systemic risk, etc.
Promotional campaigns (even for banks) can give people exceptionally good deals. People know that companies periodically spend more than they earn to promote themselves and keep growing their user base, especially early on.
Do you all see the referral program ideas as misguided in the same way, or is this something specific to setting a specific return that people might expect to be upheld indefinitely?