BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Method-X on October 21, 2014, 02:03:51 am
-
Can it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?
-
Can it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I support it because trading the stock index makes a lot more sense than trading BitUSD. There are also a lot of people who would put their life savings into something like the stock index.
I would say millenials probably would want to invest this way but also you have to think outside of America. A lot of people outside (and inside) America don't have bank accounts, get paid in cash, don't have 401ks, don't meet the minimum requirements for E-trade or whatever. Miners for example get paid in Bitcoins but might want to invest in the stock index so it makes a lot of sense.
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
-
Can it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I support it because trading the stock index makes a lot more sense than trading BitUSD. There are also a lot of people who would put their life savings into something like the stock index.
I would say millenials probably would want to invest this way but also you have to think outside of America. A lot of people outside (and inside) America don't have bank accounts, get paid in cash, don't have 401ks, don't meet the minimum requirements for E-trade or whatever. Miners for example get paid in Bitcoins but might want to invest in the stock index so it makes a lot of sense.
It's unfortunate that others would likely back down in the face of possible controversy. I mean, if we're not creating controversy and challenging the status quo, we're probably not in this for the right reasons... I definitely agree there would be tons of demand, particularly from China.
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.
I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.
I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.
I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.
I understand the benefits of publicly known delegates but it seem that the citizens of the Internet and crypto users in particular value anonymity and transparency much more ,so the idea of anonymous delegates comes to mind...
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
There is not much use for this 4 main assets right now and until the demand from other dacs/btsx developers/BTS ecosystem for bitusd will come.
I really can't see how it will harm BTSX price or anything else.
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
DJIA with interest... if this is not the killer asset I do not know what is...well except my 'self-funding marketing campaign' asset.
-
Lets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.
-
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
-
and get SEC on our side first.
-5%
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
DJIA with interest... if this is not a killer asset I do not know what is...
What percentage of your btsx holdings wiill you be willing to lock up in DJIA?
p.s. I was the first person to buy bitBTC (hoping to kickstart the market), and the market remained so thin that I got stuck there for a much longer time then I wished.
-
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?
-
Instead of individual stocks, could we track index funds.
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?
I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
DJIA with interest... if this is not a killer asset I do not know what is...
What percentage of your btsx holdings wiill you be willing to lock up in DJIA?
p.s. I was the first person to buy bitBTC (hoping to kickstart the market), and the market remained so thin that I got stuck there for a much longer time then I wished.
THe question is when will I convert all of my other investments to BTSX in order to buy the DJIA, S&P 500 assets. :)
-
and get SEC on our side first.
-5%
atleast leverage overstock/counterparty legal issues or findings.. which we are also paying for... just dont go into it blind.
-
Lets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.
LMAO you're naive. Why don't you focus on getting the CIA on your side first? I'm sure shareholders around the world care about some US government agency right?
The SEC is not going to be "on our side" anytime soon. Also there really isn't any way to get them "on our side" if we wanted to. Finally, the idea that the US delegates would be focused on trying to avoid upsetting the SEC is a bad omen.
Of course if you're a US citizen you don't want to make enemies with your government but there are no actual securities on Bitshares X. Also Bitshares X has no need for an SEC so the idea of working with the SEC only makes sense if you're trading actual legal securities.
The SEC could go after Bitshares X delegates in the USA so I suppose Bitshares X delegates in the USA have something to fear but what about the shareholders? What about the long term vision which isn't just about the USA?
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?
Fear of regulators? The problem could be that we have too many delegates from the United States and I say that as a United States citizen. If all the delegates become terrified of the SEC to the point where they wont launch any controversial BitAssets then the SEC is using phantom authority to control the functionality of Bitshares X.
You think all the interesting BitAssets should come way after? Way after what? Let Counterparty take all the risks and get all the rewards? If Bitshares X does that then eventually shareholders will buy XCP.
Worst of all we don't even have BitXCP which means they have to cash out of Bitshares X. If BitXCP existed on the Bitshares X chain then there wouldn't be a reason for people to leave Bitshares X even when they want to hedge with XCP. It would only make sense to leave to actually use XCP and at this rate XCP seems to be willing to take all the risks with the least fear.
I don't really prefer Counterparty the technology, I don't really like the fact that he's locked into the Bitcoin blockchain, but at least they are trying to be disruptive to force society to react to them rather than the other way around.
-
+5% OP
But I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!
Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?
-
Lets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.
LMAO you're naive. Why don't you focus on getting the CIA on your side first? I'm sure shareholders around the world care about some US government agency right?
The SEC is not going to be "on our side" anytime soon. Also there really isn't any way to get them "on our side" if we wanted to. Finally, the idea that the US delegates would be focused on trying to avoid upsetting the SEC is a bad omen.
Of course if you're a US citizen you don't want to make enemies with your government but there are no actual securities on Bitshares X. Also Bitshares X has no need for an SEC so the idea of working with the SEC only makes sense if you're trading actual legal securities.
The SEC could go after Bitshares X delegates in the USA so I suppose Bitshares X delegates in the USA have something to fear but what about the shareholders? What about the long term vision which isn't just about the USA?
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500. I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?
Fear of regulators? The problem could be that we have too many delegates from the United States and I say that as a United States citizen. If all the delegates become terrified of the SEC to the point where they wont launch any controversial BitAssets then the SEC is using phantom authority to control the functionality of Bitshares X.
You think all the interesting BitAssets should come way after? Way after what? Let Counterparty take all the risks and get all the rewards? If Bitshares X does that then eventually shareholders will buy XCP.
Worst of all we don't even have BitXCP which means they have to cash out of Bitshares X. If BitXCP existed on the Bitshares X chain then there wouldn't be a reason for people to leave Bitshares X even when they want to hedge with XCP. It would only make sense to leave to actually use XCP and at this rate XCP seems to be willing to take all the risks with the least fear.
I don't really prefer Counterparty the technology, I don't really like the fact that he's locked into the Bitcoin blockchain, but at least they are trying to be disruptive to force society to react to them rather than the other way around.
I think you have under estimated US's reach. they have jurisdiction on the internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located.. aslong as US citizens are involved.
How is XCP "locked" to the bitcoin blockchain in a way that BTS isn't? I'm sure if locking is an issue they can use the viacoin blockchain to achieve the results they want and use clearing house instead.
What I meant was that they may not be on our side per se as in giving an explicit nod of approval but at least make some headway and use XCP to our advantage.. we are pretty much ready to create these assets any time.. so picking and marketing at the right moment is crucial to achieve the network affect... once we get out of the stratosphere we can release new products to reach space and beyond.
Anyways stock exchange indexes aren't meant to be part of the I3 block chain as per original design, a third party is to integrate this on a seperate blockchain, so you can create it if you so desire.
-
I'd be interested in this too, maybe we could track Vanguard ETFs like VOO/VTI:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0970&FundIntExt=INT
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0968&FundIntExt=INT
I don't invest in these because of French tax laws, it's far more profitable for me to invest in european stocks using a tax-free account, but those accounts can't be used for American stocks (only European stocks accepted).
Might wanna wait with this though until we have more traction on bitUSD and other major assets.
-
+5% OP
But I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!
Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?
Suppose everyone who is interested in BitUSD is already using it? How do you attract new people to use Bitshares X?
-
I think you have under estimated US's reach. they have jurisdiction on the internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located.. aslong as US citizens are involved.
Prove it! Show some evidence of this from any legal case or example.
I call FUD on this myth. I've seen this myth touted over and over yet the SEC has never gone out of it's jurisdiction. So now I'm supposed to believe the SEC would call in help from the NSA to stop some BitAsset? If they were going to do that they'd use their reach to ban Bitcoin.
Also if it's true that the US government has "jurisdiction on the Internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located" then couldn't the exact same excuse be used by every other government on the earth? That would mean Iran, China and Russia would have jurisdiction over Bitshares X and the delegates as long as they can prove Chinese , Russian and Iranian citizens are involved? Do you realize what your statement means and what precedent it will set?
Or do these special rules only apply to the United States? Once again show me precedent where the United States has done this otherwise it's a myth. I've never seen the SEC even approach that kind of power and it's much more likely the IRS would try that than the SEC.
When the SEC attempted to investigate Satoshi Dice did they have extrajudicial powers? They couldn't reach overseas in that instance yet you think they can for Bitshares X? If the SEC can do that then those same special powers apply to the European Commission to investigate US citizens right? Unless US citizens cooperate with their investigation then it's not going to work, and unless foreign citizens cooperate with the SEC then the SEC cannot do what you say it can.
How is XCP "locked" to the bitcoin blockchain in a way that BTS isn't? I'm sure if locking is an issue they can use the viacoin blockchain to achieve the results they want and use clearing house instead.
Right now they are using Bitcoin. The longer they use Bitcoin the harder it will be to move to something else.
What I meant was that they may not be on our side per se as in giving an explicit nod of approval but at least make some headway and use XCP to our advantage.. we are pretty much ready to create these assets any time.. so picking and marketing at the right moment is crucial to achieve the network affect... once we get out of the stratosphere we can release new products to reach space and beyond.
Opportunity cost. You can do something at any time so why do it now? Because of opportunity cost. The same reasoning Bytemaster is using for the urgency of this merger/dilution proposal.
Anyways stock exchange indexes aren't meant to be part of the I3 block chain as per original design, a third party is to integrate this on a seperate blockchain, so you can create it if you so desire.
Neither is dilution. None of your arguments make any sense. You're basically arguing that the SEC is the all powerful and can arrest foreign delegates in pursuit of victimless crimes. All of this assuming that foreign delegates in China or somewhere would cooperate with the SEC? Would a US delegate cooperate with the CSRC? The next argument you made is that stock index "aren't meant" to be part of the I3 blockchain as per original design? We aren't on the original design anymore.
At this point we are willing to entertain dilution and combine the VOTE DAC into Bitshares X yet there is fear of the SEC targeting not just US delegates but foreign delegates in order to fine them for launching BitAssets? Yet there is no concern about how a crypto-merger might upset the FTC?
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/mergers-and-competition/merger-review
My opinion is that perhaps some of the money raised during dilution should go to a legal fund. In addition perhaps there are too many US delegates. If the SEC is willing to go into China or Russia to destroy Bitshares then China and Russia would also have to go into the USA to destroy Bitshares. In either of these cases I doubt either government is ever going to appreciate what Bitshares can do because the very existence of this technology is disruptive.
I think if it's obviously illegal then that is one thing but the SEC hasn't given any indication that any of this is illegal. If it's not illegal then launch the BitAssets. If you're an American then at least I could understand being cautious but I thought Bitsharex X was global and decentralized? Why are US specific politics holding so much influence?
I'd be interested in this too, maybe we could track Vanguard ETFs like VOO/VTI:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0970&FundIntExt=INT
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0968&FundIntExt=INT
I don't invest in these because of French tax laws, it's far more profitable for me to invest in european stocks using a tax-free account, but those accounts can't be used for American stocks (only European stocks accepted).
Might wanna wait with this though until we have more traction on bitUSD and other major assets.
That is what I'd like to see. I think at this point with all the talk about mergers, VOTE DACs and everything but the actual BitAsset functionality we seem to forget the whole point of the project. In order to attract users there has to be a lot of desirable BitAssets.
Some excuses which might make sense is that perhaps there isn't enough users yet which means a chicken and egg problem. On the one hand you can't get new users if you don't add bitStocks and bitIndexes but then without a critical mass of users it will not generate much revenue.
I think the focus on BitUSD competing with Bitcoin at this time just isn't as compelling as being able to trade stocks. If we could get our price feeds up and running we could do things that no other technology could do.
-
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.
Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
Agree. This is something for the future. There are many things BTS can do, theres commodity exchange in a futures market (wayyyy bigger market than stock exchange), other currencies to launch first (bitEUR, bitSLV) to market to forex traders and a strenghening of the flagship asset, bitUSD. BM mentioned marketing may consist well made videos sent to email lists of 100,000s of forex traders. If thats the case we want the strongest bitcurrencies and bitGLD and bitSLV before going into stocks.
Imo
bitcurrencies ---> bitcommodities ----> bitstocks
And there may be way to launch bitstocks is more regulatory friendly ways by tracking the price of certain funds rather than the actual stock (or something, I know nothing about this).
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.
I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.
For the record I'm a US delegate and I'd have little problem posting feeds for this.
-
+5% OP
But I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!
Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?
Suppose everyone who is interested in BitUSD is already using it? How do you attract new people to use Bitshares X?
The thing is I think we still have to "prove" that bitassets will actually work. As in, they need a good 1-3 year track record before we can attract that crowd. Just look at bitGLD we thought that would attract so many "gold bugs" but it has such a low market cap. I think before we can attract people to other assets we need a good track record for at least one.
-
+5% OP
But I think this should wait. Right now we need to focus on bitUSD and getting more volume on there. If we introduce a new asset that is popular then we might have very low volume on both. If it did happen though I for one would move all of my investment from the INX into bitINX!
Edit: Also I think most people who are just short term speculating on the INX would want to be able to go from bitINX to bitUSD directly. I know it's not possible right now but would that be possible in the future?
Suppose everyone who is interested in BitUSD is already using it? How do you attract new people to use Bitshares X?
The thing is I think we still have to "prove" that bitassets will actually work. As in, they need a good 1-3 year track record before we can attract that crowd. Just look at bitGLD we thought that would attract so many "gold bugs" but it has such a low market cap. I think before we can attract people to other assets we need a good track record for at least one.
I was under the impression we weren't even at the actively attract investors and users stage yet. Weren't the bugs going to get ironed out, the new wallet designed by Bitsapphire, and THEN all the secret sauce marketing strategies would be employed?
-
I was under the impression we weren't even at the actively attract investors and users stage yet. Weren't the bugs going to get ironed out, the new wallet designed by Bitsapphire, and THEN all the secret sauce marketing strategies would be employed?
Yea I agree that's why I said...
they need a good 1-3 year track record
They will probably have all of that stuff done before bitUSD hits its 1 year anniversary. But that's when I think people will start to take it seriously.
-
I was under the impression we weren't even at the actively attract investors and users stage yet. Weren't the bugs going to get ironed out, the new wallet designed by Bitsapphire, and THEN all the secret sauce marketing strategies would be employed?
Yea I agree that's why I said...
they need a good 1-3 year track record
They will probably have all of that stuff done before bitUSD hits its 1 year anniversary. But that's when I think people will start to take it seriously.
Oops sorry think I quoted the wrong comment? Not sure but yeah my response doesn't make sense now that I re-read it. It's late, time to quit the internet for the night. Anyway I agree that serious investors won't take notice until we are out of beta (no more filp flops on core design principals) and the system is shown to be working and stable for a relatively long period of time. Maybe shorter than Bitcoin, but still years in my opinion. Debit cards and other useful features will hopefully attract more casual users much sooner than that though.
-
Oops sorry think I quoted the wrong comment? Not sure but yeah my response doesn't make sense now that I re-read it. It's late, time to quit the internet for the night. Anyway I agree that serious investors won't take notice until we are out of beta (no more filp flops on core design principals) and the system is shown to be working and stable for a relatively long period of time. Maybe shorter than Bitcoin, but still years in my opinion. Debit cards and other useful features will hopefully attract more casual users much sooner than that though.
hehe no problem happens to all of us.
Yup I agree if it's done right it will be in a shorter time than bitcoin.
-
I disagree that it would dilute interest in BitUSD, because it would grow the overall market interest. However I would like to see higher confidence in the peg and liquidity mechanisms first before reproducing them too broadly.
I also think currencies and cross-currency pairs should come first.
Finally, I think that the concept of BitAsset yield will need to be reviewed as we move to other underlyings. I expect that shorts will want to pay much lower interest for leverage on BTSX when borrowing in assets that are more volatile than USD. In fact, its possible at some point that they may want to be paid for the service of issuing and guaranteeing 30 day buyback of BitAssets, if they are not particularly inclined the borrow for BTSX in that underlying. Not sure, but its an idea I'm thinking about, maybe somebody has a good counterargument.
-
This would be a killer asset and I would love to see it...if we could find a way to get it done. I definitely would talk to the lawyers. We do NOT want SEC trouble.
Issues: (1) SEC regulates secondary securities markets. Index funds have to hold stocks they are tracking.
Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have a lot more freedom to operate, but are regulated companies that offer their shares on an exchange.
(2) I believe if you have a derivative product that even tracks the S&P 500 or Dow Jones, you need to license that trademark. Both are owned by Dow Jones Inc.
As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
-
As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
hehe I like the way you think!
-
One big problem with tracking stock indices with bitassets would be to compensate for dividends. When you hold an index ETF (SPY for S&P500, for example) you receive all the dividends that the companies pay, normally on a quarterly basis. With a bitasset we would need to add them quarterly to the bitasset price, so there would be a growing deviation from the tracked index/ETF and a nightmare for the feed publishing script.
BTW, I already proposed bitassets tracking S&P500, Dow, and Nasdaq a while ago:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8690
-
One big problem with tracking stock indices with bitassets would be to compensate for dividends. When you hold an index ETF (SPY for S&P500, for example) you receive all the dividends that the companies pay, normally on a quarterly basis. With a bitasset we would need to add them quarterly to the bitasset price, so there would be a growing deviation from the tracked index/ETF and a nightmare for the feed publishing script.
BTW, I already proposed bitassets tracking S&P500, Dow, and Nasdaq a while ago:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8690
No need to track dividends... you get yield instead which may be higher ;)
-
This would be a killer asset and I would love to see it...if we could find a way to get it done. I definitely would talk to the lawyers. We do NOT want SEC trouble.
Issues: (1) SEC regulates secondary securities markets. Index funds have to hold stocks they are tracking.
Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have a lot more freedom to operate, but are regulated companies that offer their shares on an exchange.
(2) I believe if you have a derivative product that even tracks the S&P 500 or Dow Jones, you need to license that trademark. Both are owned by Dow Jones Inc.
As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?
I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.
Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.
Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
-
This would be a killer asset and I would love to see it...if we could find a way to get it done. I definitely would talk to the lawyers. We do NOT want SEC trouble.
Issues: (1) SEC regulates secondary securities markets. Index funds have to hold stocks they are tracking.
Exchange traded funds (ETFs) have a lot more freedom to operate, but are regulated companies that offer their shares on an exchange.
(2) I believe if you have a derivative product that even tracks the S&P 500 or Dow Jones, you need to license that trademark. Both are owned by Dow Jones Inc.
As decentralized as BTS is, I question whether it can just ignore the laws. Part of me says wait on this and let Overstock spend their money on lawyers to figure out how best to approach a decentralized stock market. And then copy learn from what they are doing if it works.
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?
I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.
Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.
Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
It issues shares bitcoin does not... Why was the term "interest" renamed?
Any company issuing any kind of shares will have to track the shares issued to by physical indentity as well as company being registered (something overstock will have to do)... since this isn't a company being registered it is a gray area... but one where if something like this is done and it grows quite a bit will have people looking into it for sure and trying to find a way to shut it down.
-
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?
I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.
Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.
Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
You know I respect your opinions. I've agreed with most of them on the forum. And I can see your point here also. Mine is that I'd like us to do this legally and get it right. SEC shoots first and asks questions later; by the time you get your day in court, you've been financially ruined and your innocence is beside the point. Why take that risk when Overstock is spending the money to solve those problems for the whole industry? Let them bridge that gap and let us jump in when the time is right. There's enough good stuff in BitShares without breaking the law.
-
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?
I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.
Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.
Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
You know I respect your opinions. I've agreed with most of them on the forum. And I can see your point here also. Mine is that I'd like us to do this legally and get it right. SEC shoots first and asks questions later; by the time you get your day in court, you've been financially ruined and your innocence is beside the point. Why take that risk when Overstock is spending the money to solve those problems for the whole industry? Let them bridge that gap and let us jump in when the time is right. There's enough good stuff in BitShares without breaking the law.
I agree we should hold off creating bitINX but not for the same reasons. I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us. imo that could be another 3-5 years so hopefully by then Overstock has come up with something. If not then we should have a big enough market to help OS make an impact. But I think the type of people we are trying to attract with bitINX won't be comfortable with it until bitassets have a track record.
-
I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us.
You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.
-
I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us.
You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.
s'far so good.. aslong as we dont offer offensive things for sale thru a marketplace we should be ok... keep in the backburner until it blows up then hopefully by then we will know from overstock what it takes , if anything, to become legit and go after other markets to bring even more money in.
-
I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us.
You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.
s'far so good.. aslong as we dont offer offensive things for sale thru a marketplace we should be ok... keep in the backburner until it blows up then hopefully by then we will know from overstock what it takes , if anything, to become legit and go after other markets to bring even more money in.
I'm not sold on all the "wait for Overstock" talk. Once Overstock and Counterparty start experimenting with interesting things, they will reap all the benefits from being the first to do it and be seen as bold and cool. Bitshares is an unmanned company built on a blockchain; if we're not pushing the status quo, why are we here?
-
I don't think the SEC will pay any attention to Bitshares in general until we have at least passed bitcoin and all eyes are on us.
You might be surprised. I've seen SEC target small businesses before. For a lot less than this would be.
s'far so good.. aslong as we dont offer offensive things for sale thru a marketplace we should be ok... keep in the backburner until it blows up then hopefully by then we will know from overstock what it takes , if anything, to become legit and go after other markets to bring even more money in.
I'm not sold on all the "wait for Overstock" talk. Once Overstock and Counterparty start experimenting with interesting things, they will reap all the benefits from being the first to do it and be seen as bold and cool. Bitshares is an unmanned company built on a blockchain; if we're not pushing the status quo, why are we here?
Fair point... ok how about... lets get some hype happening.. and then when the hype seems to die down lets release this one to bring the hype back.
-
I'd rather want to see the Bitshares wallet become more user friendly before more assets are added. I needs to be super fast and easy to use.
-
The FTC regulates mergers. Should we call our lawyers? Should we ask the FTC what they think?
I think these questions are ridiculous because Bitshares X is software not a security. If Bitshares X is a security then Bitcoin is a security. If Bitshares X is using BitUSD then is that counterfeiting? No because BitUSD is just BTSX.
Honestly I don't think there is anything lawyers could say to help when it comes to truly ground breaking innovations. No one really knows how authorities will react. In China they banned Bitcoin and who knows the SEC could react the same way but even if that happens Bitshares X is supposed to be able to survive that.
Even if every one of us were fined Bitshares X should be able to survive. Additionally if there is a lot of money made then will the fine be the worst thing in the world? It becomes just like a tax.
You know I respect your opinions. I've agreed with most of them on the forum. And I can see your point here also. Mine is that I'd like us to do this legally and get it right. SEC shoots first and asks questions later; by the time you get your day in court, you've been financially ruined and your innocence is beside the point. Why take that risk when Overstock is spending the money to solve those problems for the whole industry? Let them bridge that gap and let us jump in when the time is right. There's enough good stuff in BitShares without breaking the law.
Legally in which country? We aren't all in America. Financially ruined? Do you know how much money Bitshares X alone could make for delegates? When Bytemaster and the other delegates are multi-millionaires do you think they'll be financially ruined by the SEC trial?
And also did you contact the FTC because a crypto-merger might upset them right? Just calling it a merger puts you under FTC jurisdiction?
The SEC does not have jurisdiction over all trade activity all around the world any more than the Chinese trade commission does. Even if it somehow did have the legal authority it would be practically unenforceable and more like the situation file sharers faced for copryright infringement. My point is that if you're a US citizen and they haven't specifically said you're breaking the law then you have no way to know whether it's illegal or not until people start getting fined.
If Bitcoin developers waited for regulators, the IRS, and others to decide whether Bitcoin was a currency or not then Bitcoin could never be developed. If you the tax payer waited to buy Bitcoins because the IRS didn't tell you how to pay taxes then you'd miss out on profits.
The only answer is to just develop the software and find out. If you get fined by the SEC then pay the fine. If you get in trouble with the IRS then pay whatever you owe. The only problem I have is people who are so afraid of the government that they won't touch crypto at all. If you wont touch crypto at all why are you here? If you're not willing to take a risk why do you expect to get rich off Bitshares X by being a delegate?
Dilution means Bitshares X will be self funding and can afford to protect it's delegates
Bitshares X isn't going to make anyone rich without risk just like the early adopters of Bitcoin all risked getting in trouble to use that. If you don't take risks you don't win. If you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.
I'd rather want to see the Bitshares wallet become more user friendly before more assets are added. I needs to be super fast and easy to use.
Counterparty is eating Bitshares X lunch while you wait. In this industry the team who sits and waits is the team who doesn't get rich. In the altcoin environment the people who took the risks earl y on are the ones who have millions of dollars. Somehow now everyone is afraid of the SEC even though the SEC has never attacked Bitcoin itself or any blockchain. Why would the SEC suddenly target Bitcoin itself?
I'm not saying they couldn't do that but even if they did that then how much of a fine would it be if the SEC did go after Bitshares delegates? And what would ultimately happen? Delegates who are US citizens would pay the fine and then there wouldn't be any more US citizens as delegates as Bitshares X develops an immunity to the SEC.
So I don't think it would make a lot of sense. It would be a lot like what happened when the recording industry started suing fans for copyright infringement. All it did was make the software even better, harder to find people because it started to go anonymous, and Bittorrent was the ultimate result. If the SEC were to target victimless crimes to make a political statement it might result in entire communities developing their software specifically to avoid SEC interference. The fear of the SEC is in effect specifically because the SEC hasn't revealed it's hand, and it's similar with the IRS (the IRS is actually the bigger danger).
-
Can you imagine if the SEC actually started shutting down American delegates? It would be absolute marketing gold. Everyone would see us as the underdog fighting against an unfair system. The media attention and eventual Streisand effect would take BTS to at least $1.00 per share.
-
Do you know how much money Bitshares X alone could make for delegates? When Bytemaster and the other delegates are multi-millionaires do you think they'll be financially ruined by the SEC trial?
Here's hoping they get that far. Without unnecessary headwinds, I think they will.
-
What if we peg crypto currencies instead? Promoting other cryptos? Keep an open mind for a moment...
The primary community likely to be first movers in the space we are currently operating in are crypto-enthusiasts. I think it might pay better initially to focus on what these people love, rather than trying to attract more distant users we do not understand well into the space through BitUSD. This will happen in time, but expand from the initial community first by giving them what they demand. I learnt this concept from the first video at this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10178.0.
So once we get the current pegged assets, including BitBTC, working successfully with a tight peg and good liquidity for sellers, I'm wondering if pegged cryptos is a more fruitful path in the short term, appealing to the community right on our doorstep, instead of trying to convince a community of gold-enthusiasts, stock-traders, currency traders, merchants etc that they should be doing something very different to what they are used to.
If we offered pegged crypto-currencies to what is currently almost a $6bn market cap industry, the benefits offered to the crypto community are:
1) they can trade major crypto-currencies (any we choose to peg) in the same way as they do on other exchanges
2) there is no counterparty risk (no GOX moment)
3) they only have to deal with a single wallet to trade all of their cryptos
4) with the 30 day short expiry rule, there may also be more liquidity available than on other exchanges (as long as shorts are willing to issue)
This is a combination of features the crypto community has been absolutely clamouring for since the Gox insolvency if only they could get it. One might argue that adding a broad set of cryptos could dilute interest in (proposed) BTS. But on the contrary, it might introduce them to BTS, and when they see BTS outperforming their other cryptos, that will be a positive. Also no SEC risks...
I'm not a technical expert in this field, so I might be missing a lot of problems. But some possible difficulties I've thought of so far:
- how do you get a reasonable price feed if the BTS exchange draws interest and liquidity away from other exchanges
- how do you encourage shorts to offer the supply (they are the issuers) because they take on risk of volatile 'borrowing' sources that they may not find desirable in supporting each market.
Has this been proposed before? Thoughts?
-
Do you know how much money Bitshares X alone could make for delegates? When Bytemaster and the other delegates are multi-millionaires do you think they'll be financially ruined by the SEC trial?
Here's hoping they get that far. Without unnecessary headwinds, I think they will.
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/524947758528999424
-
Hilarious.
-
Yield on DJIA or SP500 or any number of other indices would/will make an incredibly compelling investment case.
Pegged indices will happen, just a matter of time.
-
Yield on DJIA or SP500 or any number of other indices would/will make an incredibly compelling investment case.
Pegged indices will happen, just a matter of time.
One thing I'm not certain of is how yield will vary weigh different BitAssets. There are a couple of possible sources of yield:
1) a share of the pool of transaction costs - I'm not sure of the sustainability of this - ideally over time it would be better to lower cost frictions in the market as much as possible down to the network support cost, which should leave very little to distribute to BitAsset owners, and
2) an amount willingly paid by shorts to enter the position - however effectively the short would be borrowing in different assets to get their leverage to BTSX, and some of these may not be attractive to borrow in, especially volatile assets, so shorts will presumably pay less for this opportunity. In some cases, they may even want payment.
So I suspect the opportunity for yield may not be true of any BitAsset in a generalised sense.
-
If you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.
When delegates are making enough money they should start keeping an emergency fund. I think most people would vote for a delegate who kept an emergency fund, at least I know I would. I don't think this would effect the DAC very much though, it would just adapt. It is not necessary for the DAC to actually set aside funds or start DCI for this case at least.
-
What if we peg crypto currencies instead? Promoting other cryptos? Keep an open mind for a moment...
The primary community likely to be first movers in the space we are currently operating in are crypto-enthusiasts. I think it might pay better initially to focus on what these people love, rather than trying to attract more distant users we do not understand well into the space through BitUSD. This will happen in time, but expand from the initial community first by giving them what they demand. I learnt this concept from the first video at this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10178.0.
So once we get the current pegged assets, including BitBTC, working successfully with a tight peg and good liquidity for sellers, I'm wondering if pegged cryptos is a more fruitful path in the short term, appealing to the community right on our doorstep, instead of trying to convince a community of gold-enthusiasts, stock-traders, currency traders, merchants etc that they should be doing something very different to what they are used to.
If we offered pegged crypto-currencies to what is currently almost a $6bn market cap industry, the benefits offered to the crypto community are:
1) they can trade major crypto-currencies (any we choose to peg) in the same way as they do on other exchanges
2) there is no counterparty risk (no GOX moment)
3) they only have to deal with a single wallet to trade all of their cryptos
4) with the 30 day short expiry rule, there may also be more liquidity available than on other exchanges (as long as shorts are willing to issue)
This is a combination of features the crypto community has been absolutely clamouring for since the Gox insolvency if only they could get it. One might argue that adding a broad set of cryptos could dilute interest in (proposed) BTS. But on the contrary, it might introduce them to BTS, and when they see BTS outperforming their other cryptos, that will be a positive. Also no SEC risks...
I'm not a technical expert in this field, so I might be missing a lot of problems. But some possible difficulties I've thought of so far:
- how do you get a reasonable price feed if the BTS exchange draws interest and liquidity away from other exchanges
- how do you encourage shorts to offer the supply (they are the issuers) because they take on risk of volatile 'borrowing' sources that they may not find desirable in supporting each market.
Has this been proposed before? Thoughts?
I disagree. I think a lot of the crypto-world (specifically bitcoiners) are stubborn. We should go after people who don't worship their currency (i.e. fiat users). The crypto world will follow once we pass bitcoin in market cap.
-
If you're a delegate getting paid by Bitshares X and the SEC takes you to court then Bitshares X shareholders could vote on having additional dilution in order to fund legal defense. In my opinion a legal defense fund should be set aside to protect against this black swan event and the DAC itself could set money aside and additionally delegates themselves if they make enough money could set $100,000 aside for the SEC/IRS just in case they get harassed.
When delegates are making enough money they should start keeping an emergency fund. I think most people would vote for a delegate who kept an emergency fund, at least I know I would. I don't think this would effect the DAC very much though, it would just adapt. It is not necessary for the DAC to actually set aside funds or start DCI for this case at least.
Yeah wouldn't it make more sense to fire the delegate and vote in a new one? The community at large should raise funds for a legal defense if they choose. Share dilution should not be considered for this purpose.
-
What if we peg crypto currencies instead? Promoting other cryptos? Keep an open mind for a moment...
The primary community likely to be first movers in the space we are currently operating in are crypto-enthusiasts. I think it might pay better initially to focus on what these people love, rather than trying to attract more distant users we do not understand well into the space through BitUSD. This will happen in time, but expand from the initial community first by giving them what they demand. I learnt this concept from the first video at this thread... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10178.0.
So once we get the current pegged assets, including BitBTC, working successfully with a tight peg and good liquidity for sellers, I'm wondering if pegged cryptos is a more fruitful path in the short term, appealing to the community right on our doorstep, instead of trying to convince a community of gold-enthusiasts, stock-traders, currency traders, merchants etc that they should be doing something very different to what they are used to.
If we offered pegged crypto-currencies to what is currently almost a $6bn market cap industry, the benefits offered to the crypto community are:
1) they can trade major crypto-currencies (any we choose to peg) in the same way as they do on other exchanges
2) there is no counterparty risk (no GOX moment)
3) they only have to deal with a single wallet to trade all of their cryptos
4) with the 30 day short expiry rule, there may also be more liquidity available than on other exchanges (as long as shorts are willing to issue)
This is a combination of features the crypto community has been absolutely clamouring for since the Gox insolvency if only they could get it. One might argue that adding a broad set of cryptos could dilute interest in (proposed) BTS. But on the contrary, it might introduce them to BTS, and when they see BTS outperforming their other cryptos, that will be a positive. Also no SEC risks...
I'm not a technical expert in this field, so I might be missing a lot of problems. But some possible difficulties I've thought of so far:
- how do you get a reasonable price feed if the BTS exchange draws interest and liquidity away from other exchanges
- how do you encourage shorts to offer the supply (they are the issuers) because they take on risk of volatile 'borrowing' sources that they may not find desirable in supporting each market.
Has this been proposed before? Thoughts?
I disagree. I think a lot of the crypto-world (specifically bitcoiners) are stubborn. We should go after people who don't worship their currency (i.e. fiat users). The crypto world will follow once we pass bitcoin in market cap.
The BTC-e crowd is full of traders switching positions on their crypto-currencies. Certainly there are some stubborn people who believe in "one crypto" but what evidence is there that this reflects the average exchange user? We could get the BTC-e crowd to a platform like this with a lot less initial convincing than fiat users in my view. They are already comfortable in this crypto-environment. We are not trying to convert them to BTS, BitUSD or anything else. We are merely offering a decentralised exchange service.
The challenge I think might be finding shorts willing to 'borrow' in these cryptos that can often go anywhere.
-
The BTC-e crowd is full of traders switching positions on their crypto-currencies. Certainly there are some stubborn people who believe in "one crypto" but what evidence is there that this reflects the average exchange user? We could get the BTC-e crowd to a platform like this with a lot less initial convincing than fiat users in my view. They are already comfortable in this crypto-environment. We are not trying to convert them to BTS, BitUSD or anything else. We are merely offering a decentralised exchange service.
The challenge I think might be finding shorts willing to 'borrow' in these cryptos that can often go anywhere.
Last time BTC-e added a coin was in I think February of this year. I highly doubt they will add BTS unless we get really close to or pass BTC. It seems a lot of exchanges have stopped adding new coins and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon.
-
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.
I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.
Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.
Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.
I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.
theres a cannabis thread??? i belong there.
-
theres a cannabis thread??? i belong there.
search: bitcannabis