BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 06:50:14 pm

Title: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 06:50:14 pm
So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.

5% isn't an outrageous amount of interest, but it is significant in this era of negative interest rates. I think being able to use concrete numbers will make it so much easier to make mainstream people curious. If it becomes trusted enough, I could see this becoming viral knowledge between cautious savers especially in China, with people rushing to put their life savings into it if they hear about it from people they already trust - the Chinese are fond of getting on trends about what the safest longterm investments are. Right now we're seeing a housing bubble pop, and it would be the perfect time for them to be introduced to a new safe investment.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 06:55:19 pm
Funding this yield with dilution is an expensive proposition. 
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Ander on October 28, 2014, 06:57:54 pm
If we were to dilute in order to pay a higher interest rate, that would make Bitshares look like a scam to me.  A ponzi, taking the funds of new investors (those who bought diluted shares) and paying it as interest to old investors.

This is exactly what we dont want to do, imo.

We need to increase real, legitimate, sustainable demand for bitUSD.  Which is hopefully what the coming marketing campaign will do.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: matt608 on October 28, 2014, 06:59:00 pm
If we were to dilute in order to pay a higher interest rate, that would make Bitshares look like a scam to me.  A ponzi, taking the funds of new investors (those who bought diluted shares) and paying it as interest to old investors.

This is exactly what we dont want to do, imo.

We need to increase real, legitimate, sustainable demand for bitUSD.  Which is hopefully what the coming marketing campaign will do.

 +5%

There's no need for such drastic measures, the big guns haven't even been fired yet.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 07:00:28 pm
If we were to dilute in order to pay a higher interest rate, that would make Bitshares look like a scam to me.  A ponzi, taking the funds of new investors (those who bought diluted shares) and paying it as interest to old investors.

This is exactly what we dont want to do, imo.

We need to increase real, legitimate, sustainable demand for bitUSD.  Which is hopefully what the coming marketing campaign will do.
Very NuBits like +5%
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 07:01:36 pm
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.   
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Pheonike on October 28, 2014, 07:01:44 pm
I would say cap it at 5% and put the rest in reserve or dev fund.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 07:02:19 pm
So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.

It is also an unfair and deceptive practice if you don't actually tell the user where the 5% is coming from. Scam territory
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 07:03:28 pm
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

 +5%
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 28, 2014, 07:05:32 pm
So as far as I understand it, we will most certainly see natural yield of around 5%. I think it would be a huge marketing advantage if we decided to subsidize it to always be at least 5% for the three main currency bitAssets (USD, EUR, CNY), because that means we can write that as the minimum yield in promotional material.

5% isn't an outrageous amount of interest, but it is significant in this era of negative interest rates. I think being able to use concrete numbers will make it so much easier to make mainstream people curious. If it becomes trusted enough, I could see this becoming viral knowledge between cautious savers especially in China, with people rushing to put their life savings into it if they hear about it from people they already trust - the Chinese are fond of getting on trends about what the safest longterm investments are. Right now we're seeing a housing bubble pop, and it would be the perfect time for them to be introduced to a new safe investment.

To put is mildly... this is nuts!

Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: luckybit on October 28, 2014, 07:06:22 pm
If we were to dilute in order to pay a higher interest rate, that would make Bitshares look like a scam to me.  A ponzi, taking the funds of new investors (those who bought diluted shares) and paying it as interest to old investors.

This is exactly what we dont want to do, imo.

We need to increase real, legitimate, sustainable demand for bitUSD.  Which is hopefully what the coming marketing campaign will do.

I agree. If we start doing this I would pull out and so would a lot of others. Yield is important but it's not like dilution itself is even popular within our own community and to do it specifically to provide yield is not worth it.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: xeroc on October 28, 2014, 07:10:50 pm
I agree. If we start doing this I would pull out and so would a lot of others. Yield is important but it's not like dilution itself is even popular within our own community and to do it specifically to provide yield is not worth it.

Yield = nice to have return as a stakeholder in the asset .. nothing more!

I vote for no (further) dilution
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 07:28:56 pm
Just to be clear... I do not support this proposal in the slightest.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 28, 2014, 07:39:24 pm
Just to be clear... I do not support this proposal in the slightest.

And I am pretty sure nobody expected you to be supporting it.


On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.   

Wow. Dare to share a bit tiny little more?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 08:11:33 pm
What I get from this is that yield is not going to be around 5% then. Then what will it be, 2%? Then we should put that as the subsidy floor and advertise that. Any number is better than no number (which will always be assumed to be 0.001% like all other banks).
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 28, 2014, 08:15:03 pm
What I get from this is that yield is not going to be around 5% then. Then what will it be, 2%? Then we should put that as the subsidy floor and advertise that. Any number is better than no number (which will always be assumed to be 0.001% like all other banks).

If you want artificial and or  high numbers go join NuBits... they will have them soon enough.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: lil_jay890 on October 28, 2014, 08:18:17 pm
You can't subsidize an interest rate... maybe you can try when the market cap is small but it will never work as the cap increases.

Central Banks have trouble controlling interest rates even though they have the ability to print as much money and buy/sell as many of their bonds as they would like.  Just look at the US QE programs... they want rates to rise, but it's just not happening.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: CLains on October 28, 2014, 08:40:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 08:50:15 pm
Unlike nubits we have total control on when to end this subsidy. The very second that shareholders deem it unprofitable to continue the subsidy, they will vote to end it.

You guys are thinking in bitcoin terms, not in company terms. This would be a promotional marketing campaign, an investment meant to result in a higher payoff (through rapid influx of capital deposited in bitAssets). You are underestimating the massive advantage the promise of a real number will give people, rather than simply a promise of "it pays interest".

I think it is a bad idea to simply dismiss it outright. It is better to discuss if and how it could be done profitably.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: nomoreheroes7 on October 28, 2014, 09:26:30 pm
Unlike nubits we have total control on when to end this subsidy. The very second that shareholders deem it unprofitable to continue the subsidy, they will vote to end it.

You guys are thinking in bitcoin terms, not in company terms. This would be a promotional marketing campaign, an investment meant to result in a higher payoff (through rapid influx of capital deposited in bitAssets). You are underestimating the massive advantage the promise of a real number will give people, rather than simply a promise of "it pays interest".

I think it is a bad idea to simply dismiss it outright. It is better to discuss if and how it could be done profitably.

...but if we're able to naturally provide somewhere in the realm of 5% interest, none of this would be necessary...let's focus on getting the yield naturally.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 09:42:13 pm
I've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.

In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.

Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 09:43:30 pm
I've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.

In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.

That implies that you can create an iron-clad guarantee that BTS will have value... not possible.   Not even possible in traditional banks.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 09:44:12 pm
Unlike nubits we have total control on when to end this subsidy. The very second that shareholders deem it unprofitable to continue the subsidy, they will vote to end it.

You guys are thinking in bitcoin terms, not in company terms. This would be a promotional marketing campaign, an investment meant to result in a higher payoff (through rapid influx of capital deposited in bitAssets). You are underestimating the massive advantage the promise of a real number will give people, rather than simply a promise of "it pays interest".

I think it is a bad idea to simply dismiss it outright. It is better to discuss if and how it could be done profitably.

...but if we're able to naturally provide somewhere in the realm of 5% interest, none of this would be necessary...let's focus on getting the yield naturally.

Even if we were able to naturally provide that, we could never back it up and thus never advertise it. All advertising efforts would at best be able to come up with a constantly updating sign that says current average interest rate = x%. Or interest rate on some set date was x%. I think this will make people suspicious that it could disappear at any time. At least it's a lot more difficult to set up advertising like that in price and a lot more difficult to communicate effectively between people in general. We want to be able to go viral (sorry for using buzzwords).

If we just set our subsidized interest rate below what we can predict will be the average interest rate, it should cost very little but have enormous marketing benefits. If we feel like we're being gamed, or we set the target wrong, we can just vote to remove it. I personally think 5% natural rates should be possible to achieve given our small market cap and enormous growth potential. We could perhaps subsidize at 4%, which is still a really significant number to be able to bring to a negative-interest market. The amount of people who will be drawn in by this 4% guarantee will vastly outweigh the price, if any, we have to pay for it.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: bytemaster on October 28, 2014, 09:45:49 pm
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 09:47:27 pm
I've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.

In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.

That implies that you can create an iron-clad guarantee that BTS will have value... not possible.   Not even possible in traditional banks.

Near certainty is enough. A public bail-out policy on the main bitassets would be such a gargantuan advantage. In the event of a price collapse of BTS, bitasset owners will wait a lot longer to panic and begin pulling out their own funds (that would only happen if they think that the price is literally going to 0 and the network will cease to exist). This will give a market-wide increase in confidence and will help prevent a crash from happening in the first place.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 09:48:38 pm
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Totally true, but that still leaves us nothing to market in our first year, and is exactly why we need the subsidy in the beginning.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 10:01:52 pm
And what if the promotional period ends without increasing the volume enough to get us to 5% interest? What happens when rates drop to 2-3%?  Print more shares? Apologize to those who thought they were always getting 5%?  Why can't we just advertise *1.5% variable APR, with an asterisk that explains how interest is generated, and expected returns based on volume?  Do we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces? Is offering 5% interest on an investment that people don't understand enticing enough to get people to invest in something they don't understand? If you promised me 5% interest, I would want to know what your selling and how you earn a cut. If I found out a company was cannibalizing their share price in the hopes that they can keep me as a user, I may stick around long enough for my free lunch, but not much longer.  Sorry, this seems like a desperate 4th quarter hail mary pass.  If it doesn't work, the system may not survive the damage to its credibility.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 10:09:04 pm
In your ad campaign, would you be willing to clearly disclose where the  +5% is coming from?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 10:15:19 pm
I've always been hesitant about the idea of promoting the yield on BitAssets at all. The only reason a yield can be delivered is because the shorts cannot provide an absolute guarantee that longs will be made whole in the event of a BTS collapse. For the privilege of a leveraged exposure to BTS, without recourse to any personal assets outside of the the BTS contributed as collateral, shorts are willing to pay interest to the longs. This is akin to the incentives on each side of margin lending.

In an ideal design, if possible at all, it would be better for mainstream adoption to have an iron-clad guarantee on the security of BitUSD being made whole, and give up on the interest.

That implies that you can create an iron-clad guarantee that BTS will have value... not possible.   Not even possible in traditional banks.

Near certainty is enough. A public bail-out policy on the main bitassets would be such a gargantuan advantage. In the event of a price collapse of BTS, bitasset owners will wait a lot longer to panic and begin pulling out their own funds (that would only happen if they think that the price is literally going to 0 and the network will cease to exist). This will give a market-wide increase in confidence and will help prevent a crash from happening in the first place.
To BMs comment, I am merely drawing the economic link between interest and collateral risk. If we promote interest to draw in the masses, from my personal moral standpoint they also need to be made aware of the collateral risk that allows them to earn it, even though from a marketing perspective this is admittedly a drag (not everyone will agree with this statement).

But also it allows us to recognise that we do have a lever to trade off between the two - improving the collateral security (e.g. increasing collateral contribution from shorts) lowers the interest rate they are prepared to pay. We can set that dial where we see fit.

Even though it may never be 'iron-clad', there may be other ways to increase the collateral security, and I don't think we should immediately dismiss the potential of finding better solutions here it we really put our collective mind to it.  I really think this will be the burning question for sizeable mainstream adoption. This does not discount that there will be growing adoption in a wide range of niche areas who don't mind the risk for collecting their interest. To not subvert this thread any further, I will look to take this up again at some point in a new post.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:15:42 pm
Quote
Do we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?

You realise we are talking about marketing a product, right? No, we do not require people to understand how our company works on the back-end, yes we want to throw clearly digestible numbers in their faces when telling them about our products.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: xeroc on October 28, 2014, 10:27:49 pm
Maybe we should remind ourselves that we are not a classical business ... and also need not necessarily take the same strategies .. as classical businesses ..
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: kisa on October 28, 2014, 10:31:34 pm
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Totally true, but that still leaves us nothing to market in our first year, and is exactly why we need the subsidy in the beginning.

i don't think that 5% p.a. would be enough to attract investors seeking return into holding bitUSD for a while. feels like we are fooling ourselves with regards to how much a fair compensation should be for exposure to systemic BTS risk. Even without BTS price volatility, my guess is 100%+ yield p.a. at current, initial stage.

most Western banks USD deposits yielding 0% are insured. For Argentina, or Russia perhaps, there is significant risk of local currency depreciation versus USD, and USD deposits can be seized by governments. Thus people prefer to hold cash USD, or local banks pay them 10% p.a. return on USD deposits. bitUSD could be an alternative, but yield should be priced fairly compared with BTS expected return.

As BM stated before - not everyone is seeking return. Some want to diversify away from banks, some want to do business. ratailers holding small amounts of bitUSD would be a plus. Perhaps demand could be substantial in the remittance market due to fast and cheap transfers, bitUSD price stability versus USD, while the exposure to BTS systemic risk by each transacting party is very brief and comparably small (as opposed to investors seeking return). here the local gateways, perhaps even private brokers (localbitcoins idea), would be key.

However, anyone thinking about marketing BTS platform to professional FX traders, please go and visit an FX trading desk first and see at what speed and what high tech is employed by leading brokers and exchanges. 10 seconds is like eternity there - BTSX isn't likely to get traction in there in the near future imo... also not sure, why someone with trading account in a bank should trade bitGOOG or bitGold instead of highly liquid Google or Gold CFD at 10 USD per trade... I am not saying bitAssets won't get even more accurately priced, gain liquidity in the future, and allow for smaller market participants without proper banking access to do all things they want at low cost. just think that the status quo with professional traders and electronic trading via exchanges, platforms like bloomberg etc. is not yet to be doubted.


Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:33:24 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:35:04 pm
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Totally true, but that still leaves us nothing to market in our first year, and is exactly why we need the subsidy in the beginning.

i don't think that 5% p.a. would be enough to attract investors seeking return into holding bitUSD for a while. feels like we are fooling ourselves with regards to how much a fair compensation should be for exposure to systemic BTS risk. Even without BTS price volatility, my guess is 100%+ yield p.a. at current, initial stage.

most Western banks USD deposits yielding 0% are insured. For Argentina, or Russia perhaps, there is significant risk of local currency depreciation versus USD, and USD deposits can be seized by governments. Thus people prefer to hold cash USD, or local banks pay them 10% p.a. return on USD deposits. bitUSD could be an alternative, but yield should be priced fairly compared with BTS expected return.

As BM stated before - not everyone is seeking return. Some want to diversify away from banks, some want to do business. ratailers holding small amounts of bitUSD would be a plus. Perhaps demand could be substantial in the remittance market due to fast and cheap transfers, bitUSD price stability versus USD, while the exposure to BTS systemic risk by each transacting party is very brief and comparably small (as opposed to investors seeking return). here the local gateways, perhaps even private brokers (localbitcoins idea), would be key.

However, anyone thinking about marketing BTS platform to professional FX traders, please go and visit an FX trading desk first and see at what speed and what high tech is employed by leading brokers and exchanges. 10 seconds is like eternity there - BTSX isn't likely to get traction in there in the near future imo... also not sure, why someone with trading account in a bank should trade bitGOOG or bitGold instead of highly liquid Google or Gold CFD at 10 USD per trade... I am not saying bitAssets won't get even more accurately priced, gain liquidity in the future, and allow for smaller market participants without proper banking access to do all things they want at low cost. just think that the status quo with professional traders and electronic trading via exchanges, platforms like bloomberg etc. is not yet to be doubted.

We are marketing to people. They want stuff that easily catches their attention.

Also BTS systemic risk will be low if we have a public bail-out policy for the major bitassets, and we are careful with importing upgrades from devshares
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Troglodactyl on October 28, 2014, 10:38:03 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).

This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface.  It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 10:38:38 pm
Quote
Do we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?

You realise we are talking about marketing a product, right? No, we do not require people to understand how our company works on the back-end, yes we want to throw clearly digestible numbers in their faces when telling them about our products.

People don't need to know how BitShares works.  But they ABSOLUTELY need to know how it makes money if they are being asked to risk their own.  If you are unable to or unwilling to explain how you are able to offer them returns, the first word out of their mouths will likely be Ponzi. When I hear 5% interest guaranteed, I think to myself "whats the catch?"

You: "Hey want to try our financial product?  You'll get a 5% return on your investment"
Me: "5%, thats pretty good.  How does it work?"
You: "That's not that important."
Me: "Go fuck yourself"
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: kisa on October 28, 2014, 10:40:38 pm
@ Rune - I agree. 5% is better than nothing, and imo this should be subsidized by the shorts and also somehow BTS holders should have joint interest to share parts of their prospective return with bitAssets users. BTS holders would benefit enormously if bitUSD started to gain acceptance, bringing more value and acceptance to BTS itself. If they think that this happens without certain financial trade-off i think this is unlikely... Public bail-out for major bitAssets sounds interesting, to take the role of a bank deposit insurance scheme...
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 28, 2014, 10:42:37 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).


I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming.  It isn't "vastly different".  The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations.  In theory, they should work the same.  I can't really see a difference at the motivation level.  As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency.  As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).

You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money.  yuck
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 28, 2014, 10:44:13 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).

This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface.  It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.

Do not be so sure...his proposal is achieving a giant step in making this statement not so true....
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:48:55 pm
Are you trying to use moral arguments to decide our marketing strategy? Unless a majority of our targeted consumers consider that (morality)as an important feature, we will simply be outcompeted and swallowed up by a competitor that makes its marketing decisions based on profitability.

I know many people here are very idealistic, but we shouldn't forget that everyone aren't like us.

I absolutely believe that we should eventually resort to our human morality as the primary director of the companys decision making, it should also absolutely not be before we have established ourselves at a point significantly beyond any attack by any of those whose business we threaten. Think about how many they truly are - right now we should focus only on growth.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:51:25 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).


I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming.  It isn't "vastly different".  The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations.  In theory, they should work the same.  I can't really see a difference at the motivation level.  As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency.  As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).

You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money.  yuck

Government subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.

Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:56:47 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).

This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface.  It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.

Do not be so sure...his proposal is achieving a giant step in making this statement not so true....

Anything that can be freely terminated at any time is sustainable. At any time the market gains the information that it is unprofitable, it will end instantly.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 10:59:46 pm
Quote
Do we want people to understand how our system works or do we just want to throw returns in peoples faces?

You realise we are talking about marketing a product, right? No, we do not require people to understand how our company works on the back-end, yes we want to throw clearly digestible numbers in their faces when telling them about our products.

People don't need to know how BitShares works.  But they ABSOLUTELY need to know how it makes money if they are being asked to risk their own.  If you are unable to or unwilling to explain how you are able to offer them returns, the first word out of their mouths will likely be Ponzi. When I hear 5% interest guaranteed, I think to myself "whats the catch?"

You: "Hey want to try our financial product?  You'll get a 5% return on your investment"
Me: "5%, thats pretty good.  How does it work?"
You: "That's not that important."
Me: "Go fuck yourself"

There is nothing wrong with explaining the details, in fact everything should always be 100% transparent.

You just don't open with "Hey, do you wanna know how my company works?" when you're trying to sell a product.

That conversation would go:
You: "Hey want to try our financial product?  You'll get a 5% return on your investment"
Me: "5%, thats pretty good.  How does it work?"
You: "Shareholders in the company take opposing positions, and guarantee the rate is always at least 5%"
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 11:00:02 pm
How would you explain your campaign to the media?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 11:04:58 pm
http://fortune.com/2014/01/28/cash-menagerie-inside-the-bitcoin-confab/

"Still, avarice wasn’t totally suppressed. A handful of boiler-room types were scattered around the show floor, sweating through cheap suits as they touted “ridiculously profitable” cloud-based mining services or automated bitcoin trading robots. Enthusiasm shaded into hyperbole, claims of guaranteed returns were thrown around with indictable abandon, and buttonholed interlocutors were encouraged to “reserve your spot now.” One new platform would let users “earn 5% on anything” because “we’re cutting out the middleman” — when in fact, what was being promoted was a kind of digital bucket shop, a casino disguised as a stock exchange."

Can you guess who they're talking about?  +5%
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Ander on October 28, 2014, 11:07:55 pm
I think it is enough to post something like "last year people earned X% on BitUSD"... not changing... true... past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

I agree.

We just pay out the amount of money that was generated from fees.

We tell people what this rate was in the past.  The future rate is not guaranteed to be the same, but they are given an idea of what might happen.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:11:57 pm
How would you explain your campaign to the media?

The company takes opposing positions because they believe in its long term viability. Anyway this isn't for a media campaign, this is for when one guy explains to another guy that bitUSD is better than a bank because it pays at least x% interest rate. People love talking interest rates in easy numbers. Once this campaign becomes unprofitable we will end it. At that point people will already be on board and understand the inner workings better, and why they can trust the interest rate to stay high.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:16:02 pm
http://fortune.com/2014/01/28/cash-menagerie-inside-the-bitcoin-confab/

"Still, avarice wasn’t totally suppressed. A handful of boiler-room types were scattered around the show floor, sweating through cheap suits as they touted “ridiculously profitable” cloud-based mining services or automated bitcoin trading robots. Enthusiasm shaded into hyperbole, claims of guaranteed returns were thrown around with indictable abandon, and buttonholed interlocutors were encouraged to “reserve your spot now.” One new platform would let users “earn 5% on anything” because “we’re cutting out the middleman” — when in fact, what was being promoted was a kind of digital bucket shop, a casino disguised as a stock exchange."

Can you guess who they're talking about?  +5%

It's possible to mess up marketing campaigns. That doesn't mean we have to mess it up.

A guarantee by shareholders because they believe in the long term viability of their company should be enough to explain it. Also, do you think someone shouting "variable interest rates" would have been even mentioned in that article?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Method-X on October 28, 2014, 11:23:21 pm
Maybe we should remind ourselves that we are not a classical business ... and also need not necessarily take the same strategies .. as classical businesses ..

Like engineering controversy to garner publicity? :D
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: starspirit on October 28, 2014, 11:25:03 pm
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts, if the shorts compete on how much collateral they are willing to put up for that rate. Again, its by adjusting the level of security that one can fix the return.

Possible there are many variations of bitAsset design and we do not necessarily know what has the best chance of success. I'm not sure if some sort of experimental testbed is possible for competing designs running in parallel, and see which come out on top and indicate changes to the core product.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 11:30:41 pm
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts

That was the original design - did the Fortune writer take the time to understand this?  No, we were called a bucket shop instead.  Our competitors will use this against us to pounce on our throats.  They will throw out the same kinds of words that we used to describe NuBits.

I agree that share dilution to re-invest in development in new infrastructure is a good idea.  Dilution to raise money to provide 'parking' incentives is too direct of a path to bad publicity.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:33:13 pm
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts, if the shorts compete on how much collateral they are willing to put up for that rate. Again, its by adjusting the level of security that one can fix the return.

This sounds to me like it would reduce bitasset holder confidence in the safety of their asset. With a guaranteed 5% and a public bail-out policy, they will consider bitassets essentially risk-free as long as they trust our brand. And honestly, they will nearly be, in the beginning we will have such an absurd growth potential because we have yet to absorb the entire crypto industry.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: sschechter on October 28, 2014, 11:34:39 pm
Maybe we should remind ourselves that we are not a classical business ... and also need not necessarily take the same strategies .. as classical businesses ..

Like engineering controversy to garner publicity? :D

MeTHoDx, you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator/dp/1591846285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414539073&sr=8-1&keywords=trust+me+im+lying

Its my next BitShares book club recommendation.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 28, 2014, 11:37:51 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).


I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming.  It isn't "vastly different".  The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations.  In theory, they should work the same.  I can't really see a difference at the motivation level.  As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency.  As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).

You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money.  yuck

Government subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.

Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.

We are still democratically decided, it is just weighted by stake.  The result is the same, you vote what is in your interest as do others.  The subsidies are wealth redistribution.  In theory, you vote for a government that is pro-subsidy (which is both sides) in a way that you find optimal.  It is the same thing in both systems.  Don't kid yourself.  The differences are a lot smaller than you claim.  Large stakeholders have more voting power so they'll be more against the subsidies, but for a lot of people it is the same system.   

The subsidies impact large shareholders to a higher degree, just like taxes (subsidies to government) impact the wealthy to higher degree than others.

So in our system the wealthy could use their stake to redistribute money to themselves via delegates.
In a normal democratic system, the poor could vote to redistribute the money of the wealthy.  (and wealthy redistribute to themselves through other means)
This is probably the largest difference IMO.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:39:43 pm
It is possible to set up a bitAsset to be guaranteed 5% from the shorts

That was the original design - did the Fortune writer take the time to understand this?  No, we were called a bucket shop instead.  Our competitors will use this against us to pounce on our throats.  They will throw out the same kinds of words that we used to describe NuBits.

I agree that share dilution to re-invest in development in new infrastructure is a good idea.  Dilution to raise money to provide 'parking' incentives is too direct of a path to bad publicity.

Unless our collective market analysis on the prospects of bitshares is catastrophically wrong, we will not actually be diluting much to provide these incentives. They will merely be a minimum guarantee that we know will be met anyway. If we want to guard against being catastrophically wrong about the potential of bitshares, shouldn't we just sell our shares? I'd say it is worth it for us to bet on what we already believe is right: That bitshares will grow, especially when betting in this way will itself help us grow.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Troglodactyl on October 28, 2014, 11:42:33 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).

A developer delegate is another example of the blockchain subsidizing a product, in this case it is subsidizing it's own development (instead of waiting for consumers to do it for free).

This is so obviously a short time artificial distortion of our product to anyone who scratches just slightly below the surface.  It might win over brief attention from those who don't get that deep, but to any potential serious users it just obfuscates the fact that we actually have a real sustainable product that's worthwhile.

Do not be so sure...his proposal is achieving a giant step in making this statement not so true....

Anything that can be freely terminated at any time is sustainable. At any time the market gains the information that it is unprofitable, it will end instantly.

On the one hand you're saying that the benefit of this is that we can advertise it as fixed and predictable interest, and on the other you're saying we can kill it at a moments notice.  You can't have both.

And no, the fact that it can be terminated does not mean it's sustainable.  It just means you can choose to stop sustaining it before it eats through everything else you have.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:43:38 pm
I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).


I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming.  It isn't "vastly different".  The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations.  In theory, they should work the same.  I can't really see a difference at the motivation level.  As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency.  As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).

You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money.  yuck

Government subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.

Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.

We are still democratically decided, it is just weighted by stake.  The result is the same, you vote what is in your interest as do others.  The subsidies are wealth redistribution.  In theory, you vote for a government that is pro-subsidy (which is both sides) in a way that you find optimal.  It is the same thing in both systems.  Don't kid yourself.  The differences are a lot smaller than you claim.  Large stakeholders have more voting power so they'll be more against the subsidies, but for a lot of people it is the same system.   

The subsidies impact large shareholders to a higher degree, just like taxes (subsidies to government) impact the wealthy to higher degree than others.

So in our system the wealthy could use their stake to redistribute money to themselves via delegates.
In a normal democratic system, the poor could vote to redistribute the money of the wealthy.  (and wealthy redistribute to themselves through other means)
This is probably the largest difference IMO.

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 28, 2014, 11:52:20 pm
Quote

On the one hand you're saying that the benefit of this is that we can advertise it as fixed and predictable interest, and on the other you're saying we can kill it at a moments notice.  You can't have both.

And no, the fact that it can be terminated does not mean it's sustainable.  It just means you can choose to stop sustaining it before it eats through everything else you have.

It is fixed and predictable at the moment we are selling it. We can tell them they can buy right now and get that performance. In any other system we will never be able to tell people what they can get right now, without having to come up with a disclaimer that it is variable. In a free market with enough information, the moment this becomes unprofitable it will instantly be terminated, it thus has no negative impact on the sustainability of the company, unless we are completely unable to judge the effectiveness it has. If we implement it in the beginning and we don't see quick results from it, we can just terminate it again. I personally think the results of having this will be massive, exactly because we want easy numbers and easy explanations.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 28, 2014, 11:59:05 pm

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 29, 2014, 12:03:37 am

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 29, 2014, 12:07:01 am

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

All I can say is, I disagree with the way you think the market will receive this. Those who are smart enough to understand the system and understand why it is profitable for us to give the guarantee, will understand. Those who are not smart enough to understand, and who simply see our marketing material will probably be positively swayed. We will be accused of being a ponzi scheme by all the usual outlets no matter what we do anyway, this would not make a significant difference in that regard. Also I don't understand why you feel the need to deride me in what should be an intelligent discussion.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 29, 2014, 12:09:04 am

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!

It's kinda unnerving how you just repeat the same FUD words even though they have already been proven wrong (it can be terminated if unprofitable, thus is not ponzi or unsustainable). Do you not have any other arguments?

It seems that people expect that I will stand down with my idea if they simply post enough FUD in the thread. I will stand down if I'm offered a rational counter argument, or there is evidence that a majority of shares would not support this. Unless this is already the case, polluting the discussion will just serve to make it more difficult for others to make up their minds on this, and reduce overall efficiency of the company.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: tonyk on October 29, 2014, 12:11:21 am

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

It will not be accusation in being Ponzi,it will be Ponzi scheme... just better.
Instead of using new money to pay for old interest, it will simply use pure thin air!

It's kinda unnerving how you just repeat the same FUD words even though they have already been proven wrong (it can be terminated if unprofitable, thus is not ponzi or unsustainable). Do you not have any other arguments?

1. What other arguments do you need more than better Ponzi that regular Ronzi!
2.What was proven wrong? Where?

We guarantee 5%, although we do not make 5%! -part one - sells pitch.
This promise is good till you buy in! - terminable at will at any point!
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 29, 2014, 12:16:36 am
Quote
1. What other arguments do you need more than better Ponzi that regular Ronzi!
2.What was proven wrong? Where?

We guarantee 5%, although we do not make 5%! -part one - sells pitch.
This promise is good till you buy in! - terminable at will at any point!

It is sustainable because it can be terminated at any time. It is not likely to be terminated in short or medium run because it will be set at a rate where we expect interest will naturally hit, and thus will not be very expensive, but still provide a massive marketing advantage. The moment we mature and growth potential calms down, we can remove it. Before then we will remove it at any sight it is being gamed in some way, or that our predictions for the interest rate were wrong.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 29, 2014, 12:17:44 am

You misunderstand what the subsidies will be really for. They are meant as minimum guarantee of interest at a level we already know will be reached naturally. We will not pay significantly for them unless BTS fails to perform entirely. If this is what you expect, it would be more rational to simply sell your shares. Large stakeholders will vote for this because they see it as sustainable because they themselves believe in the success of BTS, or their stakes wouldn't be that large.

Once we reach a point where we understand they are no longer long term profitable, we just vote to end them.

No, I don't misunderstand that.  It is a simple concept.   

You obviously don't understand how this will result in accusations of a ponzi scheme and in some ways be analogous to one.  "If we can't make you enough money, we will inflate the money supply so that you are paid enough"  <- New sales hook?  LOL. 

Everyone else understands this, including a lot of the people who don't post here.

Your rah rah rah lets spend all this money is something any longterm investor should be cautioned against supporting.

All I can say is, I disagree with the way you think the market will receive this. Those who are smart enough to understand the system and understand why it is profitable for us to give the guarantee, will understand. Those who are not smart enough to understand, and who simply see our marketing material will probably be positively swayed. We will be accused of being a ponzi scheme by all the usual outlets no matter what we do anyway, this would not make a significant difference in that regard. Also I don't understand why you feel the need to deride me in what should be an intelligent discussion.

I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 12:19:54 am
The whole premise of the yield is profit sharing. Splitting up the money that traditionally goes to bonuses, rent, taxes, etc. If we just pay it all out all the time there is no need for a reserve and we can publish the historic yield and let people make their own decisions.

However, I suspect a bond could be issued as a smart contract that had a set return over time.

Anyway, as has been said many times in this thread if we are withholding yield of existing investors to pay a guaranteed rate of return to all investors, including new investors, than that is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. Sure we can shut it off when the money runs dry but then it's not guaranteed.

I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here as I'm probably saying what everyone else has been saying (I didn't read all 8 pages).

I say no. It's a can of worms we don't need to open.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Rune on October 29, 2014, 12:38:14 am
I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.

I already went through great lengths to explain what I meant with luck, and later fully went back on it and admitted I was wrong. But thanks for bringing that up and using it against me. I didn't mean "you didn't understand" offensively at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was certain you were expecting the subsidy to be extremely expensive for the company, rather than safely below whatever rate we can reasonably suspect - that is what I meant, nothing else. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it not as a subsidy per se, but a guarantee of a subsidy in the event of temporary volatility. Again, I apologise if my lack of ability to communicate clearly made me inadvertently offend you.

What do you mean I'm being manipulative to you? It's like you have determined that I have bad intentions when I'm just trying to have a free discussion on an idea I have for something that I'm sure will be good for the company as a whole. I don't know who you are, but I'm sure you are doing the exact same thing right now in this very discussion, you are simply arguing for what you think is best for the company.

I will stop posting in this thread now, and give up. But I currently don't think there has been a fair discussion about this where stakeholders have actually been able to let their support known with their actual stake. We need a better process for this than simply using the forum, because it is totally impossible to figure out stake support based on forum posts.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on October 29, 2014, 12:48:06 am
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 12:51:31 am
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on October 29, 2014, 01:01:59 am
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.

#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions  :)
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 29, 2014, 01:04:49 am
I didn't deride you anymore than you derided me.  You told me that I didn't understand, when you had no basis to claim that. So I used your same words against you.  Now you wish to act like I'm attacking you personally.  You are so transparently manipulative to me.

Now you are furthering it proclaiming who is smart enough and who isn't.  Well we'll see.  I think you can read this thread and see the people who were smart enough to get on bitshares early will pretty much universally disagree with this.  Then again, you think that decision was all "luck".  Shrug.

I already went through great lengths to explain what I meant with luck, and later fully went back on it and admitted I was wrong. But thanks for bringing that up and using it against me. I didn't mean "you didn't understand" offensively at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was certain you were expecting the subsidy to be extremely expensive for the company, rather than safely below whatever rate we can reasonably suspect - that is what I meant, nothing else. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it not as a subsidy per se, but a guarantee of a subsidy in the event of temporary volatility. Again, I apologise if my lack of ability to communicate clearly made me inadvertently offend you.

What do you mean I'm being manipulative to you? It's like you have determined that I have bad intentions when I'm just trying to have a free discussion on an idea I have for something that I'm sure will be good for the company as a whole. I don't know who you are, but I'm sure you are doing the exact same thing right now in this very discussion, you are simply arguing for what you think is best for the company.

I will stop posting in this thread now, and give up. But I currently don't think there has been a fair discussion about this where stakeholders have actually been able to let their support known with their actual stake. We need a better process for this than simply using the forum, because it is totally impossible to figure out stake support based on forum posts.

Woah,  woah, woah, you didn't "offend" me until you start trying to play victim.  I just chose to explain to you what you don't understand, like you tried to explain to me what I don't understand.

The fact is, the subsidy will give people something to scream about from here on out.  It very much resembles a ponzi scheme.  People will say that and they will be correct. It is so novel and crazy though that we can't quite call it a ponzi scheme.

I get that the $s are relatively small, but you just keep piling on stuff we should inflate the money supply for.  Your ideas are a perfect example on what happens when you start inflating a money supply.

I'd rather just find a wallet that deals in only bitUSD and is fundamentally more simple.  There are tons of things that need to be done first.  (bitcoind api? HELLLLLLO)  Then perhaps, when that stuff is done and we need to try and entice people in then we can subsidize some guaranteed interest rate. 

Not the sort of stuff you want to come up when you google bitUSD and start reading pages when deciding whether to invest.  You are right through, people scream as it is, it is just this will give them some very strong ammunition.  "They guarantee the % of their assets by inflating their money supply"...  bah

And yes I think you are a manipulator.  You just further justified my view when you attacked me, then when attacked back in same regard you play victim.  You're right though, this talk isn't productive.  I just want people to open their eyes and look at what people's words lead to, whether I am right or wrong.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 03:18:51 am
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.

#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions  :)

Guess I'm the one that was missing something ;)
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 03:25:59 am
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.

 +5%
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 03:39:40 am
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Troglodactyl on October 29, 2014, 04:26:10 am
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on October 29, 2014, 04:43:26 am
Are we so desperate for marketing "tricks" that the op now suggests we seriously debate engaging in such a transparently fraudulent measure?

Geez, I didn't realize our great experiment was in such peril....

I hold no degree in advanced economics, but the notion of an interest rate guarantee backed by inflation/dilution seems to me like some sort of twisted 'quantitative easing'. Am I missing something?

It was a proposed idea being met with a lot of resistance. I would say it's not going to happen. Which is exactly how this community is supposed to work.

#1 best answer to my rhetorical questions  :)

Guess I'm the one that was missing something ;)

LOL - I wish somebody would come up with a way to signify "sarcasm" when writing a post...... it would just be so damn useful
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: Riverhead on October 29, 2014, 04:49:25 am
If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.

This literally made me laugh out loud. Well done.

Only periodically though.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 05:04:36 am
On that note we have been developing a marketing strategy that does not depend upon dilution to implement.   

For the most part we will aim to reserve dilution for development efforts that have visible ROI rather than marketing efforts that are controversial.

How do you calculate the ROI on development efforts though? I'm just curious.


This is an excellent read and I think it is very applicable to Bitshares
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2014/06/03/jessica-livingston-why-startups-need-to-focus-on-sales-not-marketing/

I'm more interested in what the author describes as sales and marketing. Where sales is narrow and deep and marketing is broad and shallow. I was wondering, is it possible that previous marketing efforts were too broad and shallow? Author suggests early on that start ups should be focusing more on sales. In regards to Bitshares I interpret that as, "let's see how many businesses we can get over to our platform and how many businesses we can convince to start accepting BitUSD." I think that if the 'marketing' (I'm not talking about Brian Page specifically but rather about anyone interested in 'marketing') effort showed results as in we convinced Coinbase to integrate BitUSD into their merchant system. Or if our marketing efforts convinced some online retail business to start accepting BitUSD then maybe it wouldn't be so controversial.

If I'm not mistaken, Brian's focus on narrow and deep rather than broad and shallow is why impatient community members follow him around with torches and pitchforks periodically.

His focus was narrow and deep with investors though wasn't it? Not really users, or maybe I'm missing something.
Without users it doesn't matter if you have great developers or tons of investors.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: kisa on October 29, 2014, 05:08:05 am
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.

 +5%
+5%  +5%
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 29, 2014, 06:14:02 am
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.

 +5%
+5%  +5%

There has been plenty of reasonable talk in here.  It is very ponzi like.  This has been discussed in several posts.

The problems people have here against the proposal are a reflection of what people outside our community will think.  Now if these great new onramps that skip over crypto people work just fine - then OK !  It won't matter ! 

However, if you want crypto people investing then the whole thing sounds sketchy to me and thus will sound far far more sketchy to other crypto-tribes who will chant it like a mantra.

Otherwise the idea should be put far on the backshelf until we have things like a working and universal bitUSD wallet etc. 

First we were inflating to help continue development.  Then we've went over to funding marketing.  Now we're considering inflating to pay bribes for people to buy-in.  IMO it is functionally the same as a bribe, so call it FUD if you want, but this is the same thing you'll hear elsewhere and how would you defend against such things?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: kisa on October 29, 2014, 07:54:02 am
Okay let's not advertise certain yield if this increases wrong perception. Let's pay out transaction fees and state what has been achieved in the past for bitAsset holders. In fact what some of us are concerned about is that at initial stage where BTS is not yet established reputation/high market cap there should be enough incentives to hold bitAssets longs.

There are different ideas on this forum how to motivate people via marketing. Some are targeting to get liberty idealists, decentralization activists  and anti-bank population on board, others focus their attempts at utilitarian users a.s.o. Almost any business with network effects has certain ponzi characteristics (FB, Microsoft, Google?) and we are prepared to defend against such wrongful accusations or just ignore them.

BTS business model ist not going to collapse at later stage, depending on ever new money inflows, this is nonsense. But BTS needs CRITICAL MASS to take off, as almost any mass business. However incentives can be used to achieve the critical mass and paid out of marketing or other company funds. So I hope most of us can agree on that.

The question remains what incentives to offer. And the secret sauce might help also :) so cheer up folks - I don't see fundamental differences here, rather the emotional argument about how to frame the incentives. Let's cool down, stop being personal and get back to constructive tone and work.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 29, 2014, 10:40:34 am

The question remains what incentives to offer. And the secret sauce might help also :) so cheer up folks - I don't see fundamental differences here, rather the emotional argument about how to frame the incentives. Let's cool down, stop being personal and get back to constructive tone and work.

It isn't about how we frame or market it, it is about competitors realizing what we are doing and just blowing it up all over the place.  There isn't anything you can do to hide it, so there is no solution.  All we can argue is how much of an effect opposing projects screaming we're doing some ponzi like crap will have.  Look what we decided about nubits.  I'm not sure this is much different. 

It also speaks to the what BTS is capable of doing.  If we'll dilute just to pay out guaranteed interest..  then where do we stop and why ?   That isn't just my question to the community, these are questions you will see on reddit/threads from here on out. 
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: kisa on October 29, 2014, 11:36:00 am
OK perhaps those of us should keep quiet for a while who don't want to get involved into crypto politics like myself...
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: CLains on October 29, 2014, 11:46:07 am
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.

 +5%
+5%  +5%

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?
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: jae208 on October 29, 2014, 11:49:58 am
You know what? I actually think that the FED doesn't seem that evil after all. Dilution can be a powerful tool when used correctly. As we see here dilution of the money supply is going to be used to further development among other things. A while ago I was reading how the dilution of the money supply and low interest rates that have been going on since Obama took office prevented another great depression from happening.  Apparently if the money supply was diluted in the 1930's, which you couldn't as money used to be gold, the Great depression would have never happened. Again during the depression goods and services got cheaper and so it made more sense to just hold on to your gold rather than spend it and that brought the whole economy to a halt.

I agree with C. If we can just set emotion aside and have intelligent discourse we will be able to come up with great ideas and solutions. Why wouldn't we want to attract new users? We need new users more so than we need investors or developers. Without users to use the platform there is not DAC, there is no ROI, and no job for developers. Users of the plat form are a top priority.
Title: Re: Subsidizing bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY yield to minimum 5%, has this been discussed?
Post by: gamey on October 29, 2014, 04:23:41 pm

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.


There is no doubt I have a bias.  It isn't like I am claiming otherwise.  It is like you usng the word "simple".  That shows your bias.  Seriously CLains, you're too smart for these types of observations.

No doubt I dislike Rune. I get I've offended others.  I'm sorry to those people but this love everyone attitude will not protect the community and just set people up for the next scam of some sort.  I don't know Rune.  I know nothing at all about him personally.  I just get that vibe and my Spidey sense is creepy accurate. 

Actually look up the word bribe, it has little to do with something being illegal.  I used the word perfectly fine.  This is another example of your bias if we want to make such observations.