This is a big, big job, and I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. I don't want to fund anyone to do what Gentso was planning. Selling precious metals from one's garage is a thankless headache of a job with low margins and plenty of risk. If we really want a gateway, then we find a partner who is already in the business of physical gold and silver, and knows how to make it work. That way, they have in place the storage, security, insurance, and shipping, so that someone doesn't have to create this business from scratch. Everyone who has tried a crypto e-gold type of thing has not gotten very far with it.

In the U.S. there is amagimetals.com and in Canada there is silvergoldbull.ca which are both very reputable and well established bullion dealers which accept payment in bitcoin. I believe that they even give discounts for persons paying with BTC.

Quote from: 38PTSWarrior on November 29, 2015, 05:08:31 pm

@fuzzy

2 threads:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11020.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,13569.0.html

I worked from December 2013 till now December 2015. I think 4 hours a day is a fair guess.

Let's calculate:

2 years =730 days
730 x 4 = 2920 hours

100 BROWNIE.PTS per hour = 292000  BROWNIE.PTS

I already received 15000 BROWNIE.PTS from bytemaster.

292000 - 15000 = 277000 unpaid BROWNIE.PTS

The solution is that he can issue a million "chateaux" and pay himself as much "chateaux" as he thinks his 2920 hours are worth!

@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

Quote from: Chronos on November 27, 2015, 05:29:44 pm

I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.

Yep it sounds shit.

@Chronos  If you could articulate how a UIA would escape the regulatory concern of issuing a "security" it would be helpful.

@oldmine   I am having trouble understanding what your contribution is adding to the search for solutions as to how to fund new features..

i've talked with matias and pablo .. it will ported to 2.0, but this needs time !

Is that the same case with the Moonstone wallet?

Have you got any suggestions as to where we could be investing our time and energy? Are you a DOGE fan perhaps?

Quote from: onceuponatime on November 26, 2015, 01:57:37 am

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?

Because it requires new code, in particular this first instance of it.   It would just be a stipulation in a worker proposal to issue the asset.  Its a new kind of asset; I don't know what to call it; or its an [enhanced]UIA.   BM seemed to imply he's got an idea about this already.

I suppose there could be dynamic parameters and control given to the committee or perhaps something new with Vote functionality.  It might have its own committee of share holders.  IDK.  Or it might have no adjustable parts just be set and forget.   

This one might have a programmatic buy back at some rate.  Or maintains a bid and issues dividends.   
This would be easy to dial-in to a particular profit level, or an eternal royalty if you used dividends.

The pool of collected fees would just be added to the bid.

What else does it really need to do?
 

Thanks @Xeldal

Will add this idea to our discussions tomorrow.

Quote from: onceuponatime on November 26, 2015, 01:12:17 am

Quote from: Stan on November 26, 2015, 12:54:29 am

Quote from: lovejoy on November 25, 2015, 08:39:59 pm

The mall analogy while useful, only doesn't hold up because we are not bound by physical space, so the lifetime lease issue is a moot point.  It's really a matter of how useful a feature will remain for what length of time, and when will it be replaced or amended and how do we as a community decide to handle these cases, who is making these agreements, and what is the process for negotiating?  I personally think that a general, boiler plate agreement would be best in most cases, since it would provide something which is generally lacking around here, which is a standard operating procedure for how things get done.  Case by case is costly.  I say let investors make a case to make an exception to the boiler-plate agreement and otherwise don't mess with it.  We already have so many moving parts as it is.

The analog to physical space in a mall is transaction bandwidth on the blockchain.  Any new business on the chain needs to pay for the resources it consumes, plus a profit for the BitShares platform which is itself trying to be a profitable business.

I think the market will eventually home in on a few standard operating procedures but we are all still exploring this space so I'm not sure we yet know what to standardize on.

The answer will probably be, "Whatever works" 

That said, regulatory complexities will eventually drive us to implement certain built-in templates that help everyone stay out of trouble.

Regulatory Concerns  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

Regarding the STEALTH initiative:

if I (or a group of partners) contribute all the capital for developing the feature, and bear all of the risk of the feature being unprofitable, and then take for myself/ourselves the feature's share of the  income stream - then there would be no regulatory risk. (This I am willing to do - but it seems that the community for, whatever reasons, is hesitant to vote in such a proposal).

Conversely, if I make available the opportunity for the community to participate through a UIA, which then makes the proposal much more likely to get voted in, I/we will come under considerable regulatory risk.

It seems that the regulatory risk incurred under the second scenario must be compensated sufficiently to pay for me to up and move to a friendly jurisdiction 

I don't see the need to have you or anyone else to issue the asset.    The network could issue the asset, perhaps through a worker proposal. This Network Issued Asset (NIA) could be purchased by anyone or automatically returned if a threshold is not met, etc.  Noone needs to stand behind it and take the legal heat.   Does this make sense?

Could you flesh out a little how you think that would be done?