3)
15)
1)
… in that order. Everything else depends on those.
24 ) nice good looking and info oriented website for ordinary users to know more about BTS .
Oh, wait .......There is already one . www.AboutBTS.com (http://www.AboutBTS.com)
24 ) nice good looking and info oriented website for ordinary users to know more about BTS .
Oh, wait .......There is already one . www.AboutBTS.com (http://www.AboutBTS.com)
I also think fixing Bitshares.org should be a top priority. Every other major crypto has a great looking OFFICIAL site....ours is badly badly lacking.
Great work Fuzz.
One comment: #20 Merchant adoption should be replaced my User adoption. Get the users by giving them a reason to hold, use and prefer bitUSD and the merchants will come. If you put Merchant adoption before consumer adoption, you'll get stagnation just like with Bitcoin.
IMO the proper evolution should be:
1) User holding of bitUSD due to perceived value resulting from yield )
2) (Once sufficiently valuable), merchants attract this wealthy demographic by also accepting bitUSD (same as they are doing with bitcoin)
3) User Usage begins to be driven by merchant offers of products and services in bitUSD.
24 ) nice good looking and info oriented website for ordinary users to know more about BTS .
Oh, wait .......There is already one . www.AboutBTS.com (http://www.AboutBTS.com)
Great work Fuzz.
One comment: #20 Merchant adoption should be replaced my User adoption. Get the users by giving them a reason to hold, use and prefer bitUSD and the merchants will come. If you put Merchant adoption before consumer adoption, you'll get stagnation just like with Bitcoin.
IMO the proper evolution should be:
1) User holding of bitUSD due to perceived value resulting from yield )
2) (Once sufficiently valuable), merchants attract this wealthy demographic by also accepting bitUSD (same as they are doing with bitcoin)
3) User Usage begins to be driven by merchant offers of products and services in bitUSD.
I respectfully disagree. Bitcoin merchant adoption has been going very well, it's one of bitcoins biggest success areas. It may be possible to piggyback on top of bitcoins work and be accepted by thousands of bitcoin accepting merchants all at once. Definitely something to aim for! User adoption is just the overall goal of the whole thing rather than a step on along the way.
Merchants accepting bitUSD need to be able to easily pay their employees + suppliers with it so they don't have to sell it. Would some kind of integration with accounting software facilitate this, or could they just do it anyway? What would be the barriers stopping merchants from paying their employees + suppliers with bitUSD? (other than lack of demand)
Great work Fuzz.
One comment: #20 Merchant adoption should be replaced my User adoption. Get the users by giving them a reason to hold, use and prefer bitUSD and the merchants will come. If you put Merchant adoption before consumer adoption, you'll get stagnation just like with Bitcoin.
IMO the proper evolution should be:
1) User holding of bitUSD due to perceived value resulting from yield )
2) (Once sufficiently valuable), merchants attract this wealthy demographic by also accepting bitUSD (same as they are doing with bitcoin)
3) User Usage begins to be driven by merchant offers of products and services in bitUSD.
Cold storage is pretty easy. Is it maybe that you're looking for cold storage with voting abilities intact?
When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.
When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.
First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]
But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.
I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11349.0).
[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:
- People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
- Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11349.0)). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
- The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
- If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.
I want to try to check this post.i believe it is the ecosystem work. Dogecoin and bitcoin have large community and recognition. Now most average people never heard of digital currency, or just heard but not familiar. The next decade is wave that the larger average people learnt about digital currency and use it. Most important thing is not better than other digital currency, but much better can traditional way. So i think use-case to solve real problem of people is the key point.
Task complete: 1 points; Task failed: -1 points; Task made great progress: 0 points.
1) Light Weight Client (only dev version but close, 1 points)
2) Web Wallet (VA dev and Yunbi are both working on, but no timeline, 0 points)
3) BTS wallet improvement ----> more fluent, more stable (I myself found the 0.6.1 crash often, PS I am a heavy user, 0 points)
4) basic voting feature support (I think vote is as complicated as before? -1 points)
5) easy to use multi-sig for cold storage (function released, but easy? 1 points)
6) Bitshares mail -1 (no mail, -1 points)
7) User-Issued Asset (UIA) features (not certain about this dev.snow's progress, ? points)
8) Lots of quality documentation (ie: BM's blog) (We have BM's blog, Stan's The Origin of BitShares, but not enough, e.g. we don't have a wiki frontpage as coolspeed mentioned, we don't have a new ann post after the "merger". 0 points)
9) Whitepapers (Same as 3?) (Same as 8, 0 points)
10) Documentation of the code base to reduce the learning curve of getting more devs involved. (Maybe toast is working on it, maybe already show on GitHub? ? points)
11) Press Kit (I don't understand this maybe same as 13? ? points)
12) Marketing (Too comprehensive to evaluate, but based the price performance... 0 points)
13) widespread media coverage (bitsharestv is starting this! (Two coindesk articles, i.e. Play Dacx & Bitshares, several chinese articles by chenhaonan. As to bitshares.tv, only has 112 twitter followers. I don't think it is widespread by any definition. 0 points)
14) Something like the original famous 'weusecoins' video (? points)
15) Gateways (metaexchange, shapeshift, tradebts.com etc. Also dev.snow work on the code level. But as I can expect we need a USD ramp off just as tradebts.com, in this case it's a long long shot. 0 points)
16) Easy fiat onramps from USD into both BTS and bitUSD (-1 points)
17) Getting listed on one of the top exchanges (BTCChina, OKCoin, Bitfinex or Bitstamp) (We are publicly refused by okcoin on reddit, no progress made I think. -1 points)
18) Getting bitUSD accepted on one of the top crypto marketplaces. (remittance market, mariguana market? -1 points)
19) Workable debit card for bitUSD (-1 points)
20) merchant adoption (-1 points)
21) Ecommerce plugins (I think this is not hard, I would consider it's done. 1 points)
22) API providers (think chain.com) (blackwave is out, so no? -1 points)
23) network stability (DevShares?) (perfect, 1 points)
The total score is -4 points, and 4 completed or near completed items total.
The price is dropped from 0.1 CNY to 0.056 CNY, -44%; while BTC's price dropped from 1960 CNY to 1544 CNY, -21%; Dogecoin from 0.00113 CNY to 0.00092 CNY, -19%. ouch!
I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11349.0).Arhag, I just read your thread for the first time because I was originally put off by its sheer length. Having now read it, and without understanding all its nuances yet, I think it is a brilliant and potentially elegant solution to the concerns I have raised. As I understand it, child DACs as you propose would allow businesses to be established that would have the full flexibility of their own chain and business logic, coupled with the security of using the main chain to implement stakeholder controls on the allocation and application of the capital employed within the business. There is no need to use a base currency other than those that exist on the main chain, maximising network effect, and yet there is also no need to clog the main chain with the inner workings of every DAC that gets developed, maximising network efficiency.
When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.
First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]
But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.
I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11349.0).
[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:
- People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
- Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11349.0)). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
- The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
- If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.
I think we need to give a broader range of people a reason to hold and value BTS, if for no other reason than because the value of BTS underpins the ability to continue to develop effectively. And I also see no current avenue by which BTS holders can derive any material income from BitUSD growth, which could potentially help support ownership of BTS (notwithstanding that there would be a bubbling impact on BTS price as shorts get access to greater credit for buying BTS and concentrating its ownership).+5% +5% +5%
In my current thinking, potentially the greatest source of value-add for BTS holders is being steadily cut off. When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.
I think we should consider reverting back to the mentality of encouraging as much entrepreneurialism as possible. The profit motive can be used to incentivise much greater innovation and development within the Bitshares ecosystem. If such businesses were allowed to share common infrastructure such as BitCurrencies, exchanges etc, while still being able to build their own businesses and block-chains that interact with that infrastructure, new players with flexible business models are encouraged and the network effect accelerates. They would naturally be the merchants adopting BitUSD and other common goods. BitShares' own core developers can focus on the task of enabling the infrastructure for this to happen, maximising the value of future share-drops on BTS. I think this toolkit requires not just the development of the common infrastructure, but the tools that entrepreneurs will need to integrate easily with it. For example, some solutions (even human hacks at first) to the issue of operating with multiple chains. BTS owners would therefore be developing very different public good features compared to the private goods of other entrepreneurs, and there is no need for the asphyxiating defensiveness of the "SuperDAC must have everything" mentality.
These are just my inexpert and fluid impressions on this matter, misguided or fanciful as they may be. Apologies if this is of no value to the conversation.