Ok...Now that the wording of the poll has changed I don't have a problem and would support a worker proposal for that reason. I will even start voting if we have a worker proposal to reduce the premium for bitassets..Just please never mention the word dilution in the forum even if the worker proposal is essentially that please don't mention this word..!!

Bitcoin uses the term 'block reward'  or 'block subsidy' which is what we should use.  There is really no difference in the 21 million supply limit in bitcoin and the 3.7 billion supply limit in bitshares.  15 million of the 21 million limit (71.4%) has been created in bitcoin.  2.5 billion of the 3.7 billion limit (67.5 %) has been created in bitshares.  As long as we NEVER vote in something that exceeds this limit, then the bitshares reward is no differrent than the bitcoin reward.

That said, I say we go ahead and use block rewards to fund maker, lending, and some market making if possible.  sprint to the finish line, not walk, and do everything we can to get liquidity to the exchange within the limits of funding that we have to work with.

Quote from: Ander on January 08, 2016, 12:41:41 am

Quote from: yvv on January 08, 2016, 12:19:22 am

WOW! Hold the horse. There is only one correct form of dividend: putting real money into my wallet on regular schedule. All other forms of dividend is scam. BTS delivers no dividend. Zero. For this reason, it is nothing more than a collateral token. This is a good reason to keep it, but don't tell people that it is something more than it is.

Warren Buffet would disagree with you, and the empirical evidence that this method can work is Berkshire Hathaway.

You can't seriously mention WB in reference to crypto...

WB said stay away from bitcoin in 2015.  Bitcoin was the best performing currency in the world in 2015 up 39% against the $.

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-money-tips-for-2015-2014-12?utm_content=buffera0c03&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Quote from: Ander on January 08, 2016, 12:12:13 am

If the focus is going to be stealth, then the development of gambling features should probably be right behind it or in parallel.  Then at least you can combine stealth and gambling and provide something potentially useful. 

Bonds, combined with a margin trading service similar to poloniex should be a priority.

Prediction markets (which is sort of like gambling but different) should be a priority.


While I have mostly given up, if BTS is going to make a recovery at some point, how it will happen is that at least one of these things is implemented and starts to get some use.  And then another of them, etc.  At this point I am beyond caring what order they are implemented but it would be nice to see at least one of them implemented ever.

Sad thing is it seems they aren't considered as a priority...

I am 100% with you guys.  Bond market should be the highest priority, even if it has to be done through worker proposal. 

I was almost going to sell out when I saw bm's vision post also.  In hindsight maybe I should have.  I don't care if mas is a personal pet project.  Bm is the leader of this project and if his attention is on something that is in direct conflict with what shareholders want, then it won't fly.  We are a team and we need bm to be a part of this team and share the same vision and goals as the rest of us shareholders:  to change the world for the better through a decentralized bank and exchange - that is what we all signed up for.  If you don't believe me, then put it to shareholder vote.  Most of us did not sign up for an all-purpose chain or mas, we signed up for a dex, plain and simple and bm's vision seemed to go off on a tangent.  We need bm and we need cnx and we all need to be focused in the same direction and stay the course.  Shareholders have done our market research also.  If done right, we will all have 10-baggers to invest in:  metafees, obits, maker, bond, stealth, and perhaps the biggest payoff of all:  bts.  Forget mas for now.  If I see it proposed, then I will vote it down.  My proxy is with bm right now, but that can change and I'm sure it will change with others too. 

Unfortunately none of the MPAs/bitassets/smartcoins are serving there purpose due to lack of liquidity, large spreads and no depth.

All efforts should be focused on getting bitUSD and bitCNY functioning with low spreads and market depth.

We are a long way from having stock market indexs as MPAs let alone individual stocks.

Agreed but it would be nice to have the largest indicies set up and ready to go for when liquidity does enter the system.    These 15 world markets would be a good start and to show that this is not just another cryptocurrency exchange.

I like the idea of committee assisting with liquidity but the biggest difference is likely to come with maker and the lending market.  Reducing forced settlement to 99% globally may also be necessary to increase liquidity.  Guaranteeing settlement at parity just gets really confusing for outsiders because of the premium. 

I definitely think you guys are on the right track here.

The ability for shareholders to approve or dissaprove new features is a feature, not a bug IMO.

Adding new applications to the BitShares platform does not constitute any kind of a turn.

I Can think of many things to get done before MAS

1)  Stealth
2)  Maker
3)  Lending (Bond) market
4)  Prediction market
5)  Vanilla options market
6)  Futures Market
7)  Think or Swim / metatrader style interface
.
.
.
.
.
.
100)  MAS



Building a next generation exchange is not trivial and it's nowhere close to being done.  I doubt shareholders will approve anything not related to the dex.

It would currently take over 370 million bts to take over 51% of the witnesses.  Why in the name of God would someone throw away a million dollars to destroy bts?  Of course we could be crushed by someone with enough resources.  Btc could be crushed by someone with enough resources.  I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about.

This is actually quite interesting.  Is this proof that bitshares produces a Nash Equilibrium?  In a Nash Equilibrium, a player is only concerned with the other players strategy and not concerned at all with his/her own strategy.  The largest address is just under 360 mil bts while voters have pushed the threshold to control the network to 370 mil.  If we assume that the stakeholders as a whole are playing against the attacker, then Its as if the stakeholders have decided they need to take action if the number of votes to control the network is below the largest address and no action is required if the number of votes to control the network is above the largest address.  Im sure it is just coincidence but it is interesting. 

I'm not a big fan of classical game theory as I think there are too many variables involved, especially with more complex systems and mixed strategies, but I do believe that a no vote is a real vote and there is no such thing as voter apathy.  It is very far fetched to think that any attacker could gain financially by voting to control the network, but I suppose it is possible.