Wouldnt we just be passing the potato.
It would be extremely expensive for a private party to market the bitAsset product.
And the profits they make from the trading fees would not justify the expenses (exactly what you said before).
The only way I see this working is if an established player in the financial services space offers the bitAsset as another service and leverages their user base.
But how many large established players are leveraging crypto?
Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers
After talking to several companies which could offer Bitshares gateway services for fiat I've come to the conclusion that the regulatory requirement and the counterparty risk of becoming a fiat gateway are still too big for most startups.
However, the privatized bitAsset idea could circumvent that issue to some extend. I am looking more at this as bitUSD with private fee profits and legally compliant whitelisting. It's a middleground between gateway IOUs and true bitUSD.
The more I think about it the more it seems that privatized bitAssets with whitelisting capability + gatways for stocks and bonds + synthetic order books should be V1.0.As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community. Companies are islands of strict non-competition in markets. Think about it, if we are so much pro-market, why are companies command-and-controle structures without any internal markets? It's simple: For a social organization to be a company it needs to leverage information asymmetry, which it then bridges in the open market for profit. DACs don;t have information asymmetry, hence they cannot be companies. At most, they can be community/private utilities.