BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: speedy on November 03, 2014, 03:35:28 pm
-
I know - controversial statement.
So as I was dreaming about BitShares at work today, I started to worry about all those exchanges that would vote themselves as paid delegates thereby freeloading off the network without contributing anything in return.
Then I realized that this is could be a great way to incentive more exchanges to actually provide BTS. According to CMC, there still isnt a non-Chinese exchange with greater than 1% of the BTS trading volume.
We could actively reach out to the big non-Chinese exchanges and explain to them how they will get an immediate reward for adding BTS. Im thinking of Cryptsy etc.
-
You mean we should actively communicate to big exchanges that the BTS community may choose to vote them into a delegate spot if they run as a delegate and add BTS to their exchange? That could be a great way of getting on big exchanges... Though no one can guarantee them a delegate spot, or for how long.
-
You mean we should actively communicate to big exchanges that the BTS community may choose to vote them into a delegate spot if they run as a delegate and add BTS to their exchange? That could be a great way of getting on big exchanges... Though no one can guarantee them a delegate spot, or for how long.
As I understood it he meant that exchanges could vote themselves in. (with deposited stake from users)
As we can't prevent this we might just openly communicate it for adoption purposes.
Personally I would still not like to see exchanges to vote with stake from their customers though. Accordingly I will hold most of my stake off exchange and can just encourage others to do the same.
-
Yes a big exchange can vote themselves in whether the community likes it or not.
Might as well benefit from this.
-
We don't need big exchanges. BTS should and will only be traded on the internal market and all on-ramps will be in bitassets. This would mean that points of exchange will be able to function at full effectiveness with almost no volume, and we would finally get rid of the problem of goxing, trusting a third party with your savings, manipulation, willy bot etc. It means our on-ramps will be small operations, but spread out all over the place. The feeds will function by averaging the precision of the pegs of the respective bitasset on-ramps and using the average as a multiplier to move the feed price based on the market rate of the internal market.
-
Personally I would still not like to see exchanges to vote with stake from their customers though. Accordingly I will hold most of my stake off exchange and can just encourage others to do the same.
I agree with this!
we have no power over what exchanges do and what they don't but they should at least inform their costumers THAT they are voting in their behalf and who they are voting for and why .. this IS getting political!
-
I totally disagree with the premise. Once you break into the top 5 in market cap (as we already have) there is no need to fight for acceptance from exchanges. What we're trying to do is effectively conflate the incentive structure of block production with that of marketing and development. What we're actually doing is creating new incentives that serve neither purpose.
-
We don't need big exchanges. BTS should and will only be traded on the internal market and all on-ramps will be in bitassets. This would mean that points of exchange will be able to function at full effectiveness with almost no volume, and we would finally get rid of the problem of goxing, trusting a third party with your savings, manipulation, willy bot etc. It means our on-ramps will be small operations, but spread out all over the place. The feeds will function by averaging the pegs of the respective bitassets and using the average as a multiplier to move the feed price based on the market rate of the internal market.
I thought the feeds currently average the external exchange price of BTSX? So black swans can be caused by massive dumping on just a couple of exchanges at the same time at this point (bter + btc38). The more exchanges the stronger the price feed. Sorry but I don't understand your explanation for the feeds/pegs (due to my own limited understanding probably).
Maybe there's a way for exchanges to prove they aren't voting for themselves such as having a trusted delegate could be an escrow for the exchange funds using multisig or something?
-
I totally disagree with the premise. Once you break into the top 5 in market cap (as we already have) there is no need to fight for acceptance from exchanges. What we're trying to do is effectively conflate the incentive structure of block production with that of marketing and development. What we're actually doing is creating new incentives that serve neither purpose.
This kind of thing could be useful for big partnerships. Wouldn't it be worth a delegate spot to get on bitstamp?
However I do actually agree. If there were a new type of delegate created, 'business delegates' rather than having just 1 delegate class responsible for doing everything then delegate positions could be more easily traded in partnership deals.
-
This kind of thing could be useful for big partnerships. Wouldn't it be worth a delegate spot to get on bitstamp?
Exactly!
-
Exchanges make money from volume and we are already in the top 5 by volume on most days.
The reason we are not listed on bigger exchanges is because bigger exchanges are far more conservative and no amount of delegate pay will change that.
We have partners lined up to make this easy and the exchanges are paying us to bring them customers rather than us paying them.
-
Exchanges make money from volume and we are already in the top 5 by volume on most days.
The reason we are not listed on bigger exchanges is because bigger exchanges are far more conservative and no amount of delegate pay will change that.
We have partners lined up to make this easy and the exchanges are paying us to bring them customers rather than us paying them.
Sounds good! +5%
-
Yes a big exchange can vote themselves in whether the community likes it or not.
Might as well benefit from this.
I wouldn't say it's a good thing. It's something we need to be vigilant of & try and correct not encourage imo.
(BTC38 already controls >10% of BTS) + ( https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10937.0 ) = ?
-
Exchanges make money from volume and we are already in the top 5 by volume on most days.
The reason we are not listed on bigger exchanges is because bigger exchanges are far more conservative and no amount of delegate pay will change that.
We have partners lined up to make this easy and the exchanges are paying us to bring them customers rather than us paying them.
Awesome. From all the official comments on exchanges/onramps, it always seems to be that i3 has it in the bag, and the community doesnt have to worry about it at all. Is that just about correct?
-
Exchanges make money from volume and we are already in the top 5 by volume on most days.
The reason we are not listed on bigger exchanges is because bigger exchanges are far more conservative and no amount of delegate pay will change that.
We have partners lined up to make this easy and the exchanges are paying us to bring them customers rather than us paying them.
Awesome. From all the official comments on exchanges/onramps, it always seems to be that i3 has it in the bag, and the community doesnt have to worry about it at all. Is that just about correct?
I don't want people depending on I3... we are all in this together.
-
I don't want people depending on I3... we are all in this together.
I agree we are all in this together. So what exactly do you want the community to help with regarding onramps?
-
I don't want people depending on I3... we are all in this together.
I agree we are all in this together. So what exactly do you want the community to help with regarding onramps?
Good question. We need some directions to work in synergy as we are so much eager to make contribution.
-
I don't want people depending on I3... we are all in this together.
I agree we are all in this together. So what exactly do you want the community to help with regarding onramps?
Good question. We need some directions to work in synergy as we are so much eager to make contribution.
+5% on direction. Nobody really does anything unless bytemaster says "ok guys I would like to see you go organize blah blah". I've been suggesting a good direction the community could go in but it's going to require people working together. That hasn't been easy so far.
-
I think there is huge incentive to be the first exchange that allows users to vote with their stake.
-
I don't want people depending on I3... we are all in this together.
I agree we are all in this together. So what exactly do you want the community to help with regarding onramps?
Good question. We need some directions to work in synergy as we are so much eager to make contribution.
+5% on direction. Nobody really does anything unless bytemaster says "ok guys I would like to see you go organize blah blah". I've been suggesting a good direction the community could go in but it's going to require people working together. That hasn't been easy so far.
That is an interesting challenge for DAC's to overcome. There is value to leadership. Direction, congruency, team work, coordination etc. I love your Latin America idea MethodX. Its a great case study.
TO be successful, we would need the dev team to focus on a smartphone wallet and a localbtsx/mycylium style app. Marketers need to create funnels/videos and other materials in Spanish. Funds need to be provided for marketing(possibly), etc... How will DAC's address that kind of coordination issues?
Any ideas?
-
I like the bee metaphors. He who dies with the most wins.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YCqDcdbyZ8g/0.jpg)