BitShares Forum
Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: xeroc on June 07, 2015, 04:14:01 pm
-
BitShares 2.0 Technologies
User-Issued Assets
(http://bitshares.github.io/images/frontpage/icon-asset-ident.svg)
Issue stocks, bonds, or other tokens while being compatible with KYC and AML regulations
The BitShares platform provides a feature known as "user-issued assets", designed to help facilitate profitable business models for certain types of services that integrate with the platform. The term user-issued asset refers to a type of custom token registered on the platform, and which users can hold and trade while obeying certain specified restrictions. The creator of such an asset gets to publically name, describe, and distribute its tokens as desired. In addition, the issuer can specify certain custom requirements for the asset: such as allowing only an approved whitelist of user accounts to hold the tokens, or requiring users to pay certain fees when transferring or trading the tokens.
full length (http://http://bitshares.github.io/technology/user-issued-assets/)
-
Just to be clear, let's say a user has already issued assets without the new KYC/AML requirements. Does that user have to retroactively go back and get all of that info?
And what about assets like NOTE, that are just placeholders for a future blockchain?
This is not good news to me. Pseudonymity and TITAN were two of the biggest selling points for Bitshares for me.
-
Just to be clear, let's say a user has already issued assets without the new KYC/AML requirements. Does that user have to retroactively go back and get all of that info?
And what about assets like NOTE, that are just placeholders for a future blockchain?
This is not good news to me. Pseudonymity and TITAN were two of the biggest selling points for Bitshares for me.
User issued assets can choose to retain or revoke the permissions that enable them to halt balances and markets, as well as retract assets. In this way a UIA issuer can have anywhere from full control to no control.
-
Why are privatised bitAssets being treated as user-issued assets (UIAs) rather than market-issued-assets (MIAs)? I am confused on what delineates the two - is there a definition?
It seems to be that privatised bitAssets are not actually being issued by a user, and outcomes are not subject to the ongoing performance of the person setting it up. Like MIAs, somebody is merely establishing the software rules under which different parties can interact with each other in a decentralised fashion. Why aren't these just a privatised form of MIA?
I guess there might be pragmatic reasons to do it this way. But I'm wondering how it might look legally (at least on the surface) if, by name at least, we infer these tokens are being issued by a particular party.
-
What is the mechanism to pay feed producers for privatised Smartcoins?
-
What is the mechanism to pay feed producers for privatised Smartcoins?
I thought the issuer can take the trading fees
-
What is the mechanism to pay feed producers for privatised Smartcoins?
I thought the issuer can take the trading fees
So I think you're saying the issuer is expected to pay the feed producers directly from the revenue they receive. Since the issuer has the power to appoint and fire feed producers, and also to pay them as they please, could the issuer then be perceived as having some form of control over financial outcomes for users, and is that likely to pose any legal issue?
-
So I think you're saying the issuer is expected to pay the feed producers directly from the revenue they receive. Since the issuer has the power to appoint and fire feed producers, and also to pay them as they please, could the issuer then be perceived as having some form of control over financial outcomes for users, and is that likely to pose any legal issue?
Privatised bitAssets only have 1 feed producer, who is presumably the issuer - that's what I understand anyway.
-
would it be possible to introduce a different naming for UIAs and MPAs?
12 chars are not much, if you consider that most will create a minimum of 6 chars to prefend the high fee of 500.000 BTS.
Maybe we can copy NXT. You can create the same name multiple times, but the Asset ID is unic!
-
Maybe we can copy NXT. You can create the same name multiple times, but the Asset ID is unic!
They have a huge problem with scam assets with the same name as genuine assets. Much worse than squatters, IMO.
-
Ive got some easy questions :)
What is the fee for issuing a UIA?
My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?
Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?
-
Ive got some easy questions :)
What is the fee for issuing a UIA?
My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?
Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?
Because that is where all the volume went. BTS is more liquid than USD and NOTEs and BTS are highly corelated and thus have less volatility than USD vs NOTEs.
-
Ive got some easy questions :)
What is the fee for issuing a UIA?
My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?
Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?
Because that is where all the volume went. BTS is more liquid than USD and NOTEs and BTS are highly corelated and thus have less volatility than USD vs NOTEs.
Makes sense.
What will the fee be on Bitshares 2.0 for issuing a UIA? I assume this may be adjusted by delegates.
If an exact figure cant be given, maybe an estimate of the fee?
-
Another question.
Are users allowed to register and reserve a prefix or suffix.
This would be important to allow them to create branding and direct people to their particular array of assets.
E.g DACx has the BDR. prefix. If someone else is allowed to create a scam BDR.something users may think its a DACx product and purchase it where they may be no 'underlying asset'.
If the registering of a prefix is not enabled I think this would be a huge plus for implementation in 2.0.
Users can pay a much higher fee to register a prefix and then a much smaller fee to register new names with that prefix. We dont want someone creating a scan bitstamp.USD and bitstamp.EUR and then running off with the sales.
-
I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.
-
I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.
Cant we do both.
I think there is no good reason to allow me to register bitstamp.ZAR and the only reason I would do this is to scam people.
Why not remove that possibility.
I am looking to issue some UIAs and am therefore discovering what I would really like as a user.
Also if UIAs can float to establish any market pair, wouldnt they be distributed within the network making it difficult for users to find and know what are TRUE UIAs.
EDIT: also, each time a new cryptocurrency comes out that Bitstamp may wish to integrate with they would need to rush over to Bitshares and squat bitstamp.new_cryptocurrency before the scammer gets to it.
-
Some interesting aspects of UIA issuance are being discussed in other threads too, like this one that raises the question of how BM's 3 tier privacy proposal would work with UIAs: potential conflicts in implementing privacy measures with regulated UIAs (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17354.msg221272.html#msg221272)
This indicates to me the difficulty for such things to "peaceably coexist" in the same ecosystem; one or the other must be dominant, privacy or the power to hold / use / revoke assets.
-
I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.
Cant we do both.
I think there is no good reason to allow me to register bitstamp.ZAR and the only reason I would do this is to scam people.
Why not remove that possibility.
I am looking to issue some UIAs and am therefore discovering what I would really like as a user.
Also if UIAs can float to establish any market pair, wouldnt they be distributed within the network making it difficult for users to find and know what are TRUE UIAs.
EDIT: also, each time a new cryptocurrency comes out that Bitstamp may wish to integrate with they would need to rush over to Bitshares and squat bitstamp.new_cryptocurrency before the scammer gets to it.
@bytemaster / stan
it would be super cool to get another answer from the devs on this.
I may even trade brownie points for an answer I just cant do it, too painful!
-
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/21/uber-plans-to-go-public-in-12-18-months-according-to-leaked-presentation/
:D
-
Still looking forward to trading your ZAR.