1216
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: April 17, 2015, 10:30:31 am »
At first glance this looks very good 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
At first glance this looks very good
1217
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 2.0 - For Community Review
« on: April 16, 2015, 03:15:47 pm »
I don't understand CFD's or this very well.
I can see that the advantage of this model is less reliance on price feeds.
The trading bot mentioned is mainly facilitating moving over to the next contract as opposed to being a market maker that lets you buy and sell BitUSD for BTS whenever you want right?
If so why would this model be much more liquid?
I can see that the advantage of this model is less reliance on price feeds.
The trading bot mentioned is mainly facilitating moving over to the next contract as opposed to being a market maker that lets you buy and sell BitUSD for BTS whenever you want right?
If so why would this model be much more liquid?
1218
General Discussion / Re: [speculation thread] Silence before the storm
« on: April 16, 2015, 02:40:17 pm »- maybe they bought an island and drink cocktails
What are your thoughts?
They have run out of money and been kicked out their office. Some have taken up part time jobs as gardeners on campus while also acting as lookouts for the others who have plugged their computers directly into hijacked solar panels to continue working on BTS
1219
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 01:48:37 pm »The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent.
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.QuoteUltimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
New BitGold on Bitshares blockchain is part of the team of Bitshares, this BitGold will only compete with other BitGolds and not with Bitshares, the success of any of these BitAssets is also the success for Bitshares and its holders.
Imagine on the Dogecoin blockchain, there was no Dogecoin but instead 'Doge1', 'Doge2', 'Doge3' & 'Doge4'. All of them trying to promote themselves to a similar market as Dogecoin used too. The results might be that combined their CAP's might be greater (unlikely because of the way network effect works) but individually they could all be weaker and have no chance of being widely adopted. The only possibly way it could be good, if say 'Doge3' was such a popular, good model that all the other Doge's died and then Doge3 then started competing against Bitcoin. But otherwise distributing your user base among multiple versions of the same product (Like BitGold1, BitGold2, BitGold3 etc.) instead of getting the community and DAC to focus on one is probably not advisable.
1220
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 01:15:21 pm »The peg Assets is 2 products and 2 private companies competing. Like same toothpaste, but different company Colgate and Pepsodent.
Like Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, dogecoin, feathercoin, justacoin, weiredcoin, all the NXT clones, etc.
Yes, and Bitshares is the Blockchain, all these are Assets and they pay fees.
BitReserve have their own BitGold, so will BitGold.com and soon many 2.0 crypto-currencies including Ethereum will probably have their own decentralised versions. (There are also multiple USD products on the market.) They will all be competing to become the dominant digital gold.
It will probably end up with the same type of distribution as Bitcoin where the market leader has 80%+ market share.
Introducing BitGold competitors onto our own blockchain would mean our BitAssets would not only have to try and get market share from every other contender on the market but will even have to cannibalize the BitShares customer base.
I think BM realises this, but hopes free market competition would rapidly find the best BitAsset model for BTS which will then also be competitive against all the other competitors.
Quote
Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.
1221
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 11:53:00 am »So in the future there will be many pegged 'USD' products competing in the system.
Now, with the only bitUSD, we supports it because it's OUR product. With all of us supporting the only one bitUSD, there are still liquidity issues.
In the future, with many USD products, every issuer supports her own USD product. The relationship among BTS holders become competing but not cooperation.
I don't think it's a right thing we should focus on now, or any time soon. We have very very limited resources indeed, why not focus on the core product?
20 Proven Reasons Why Competition Is Good
http://businessgross.com/2013/01/21/business-competition/
You can end up cannibalizing your own customer base and creating a lose-lose situation. Walmart is currently experiencing this problem because they have built many stores too close together.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketcannibilization.asp
Quote
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products. Market cannibalization refers to a situation where a new product "eats" up the sales and demand of an existing product. This can negatively affect both the sales volume and market share of the existing product. Market cannibalization occurs when a new product intrudes on the existing market for the older product, rather than expanding the company's market base. Rather than appealing to a new segment of the market and increasing market share, the new product appeals to the company's current market, resulting in reduced sales and market share for the existing product.
1222
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 10:57:58 am »pegged assets are already hard enough to convince people to hold .
Now private peg assets with the ability to "fail" , and they'll market it as "the good stuff on BitShares" under the enormous financial incentive , and avoid promoting BitUSD .
Once most of the private assets starts to fail , people will only remember : The peg theory of BitShares is bullshit .
By then , even you have BitUSD left , BitUSD will be automatically rejected as well by a lot of users who just suffered from private USD .
I agree. That's why I would have them with a seperate prefix and a seperate tab, perhaps even with a caution note, so that they are viewed very differently to BitAssets.
At the same time you're right if a popular privatised BitAsset failed it could be detrimental to the BTS brand image, multiple USD/other products will also introduce brand confusion too.
Trying to find a fee structure within the existing BitAsset system that incentivises better feeds and liquidity providers is probably better.
(The referral programme discussed in the other thread will take care of the general BitAsset promotion side.)
1223
General Discussion / Re: The DAC as a limited internal market maker
« on: April 16, 2015, 10:46:12 am »It can just have a very wide spread, one that would have proved profitable to date. Even if it loses money or has to stop once it reaches a certain inventory limit, it could be a net value gain for the DAC if it provides confidence to BitAsset users that there is liquidity. (Imagine if some of the value the DAC is leaking on the merger was directed to subsidising BitAsset liquidity for 20 months instead.)
It doesn't work like unfortunately. If you have a very wide spread, your orders don't get filled and you end up taking on more inventory risk. If the DAC looses too much money, it could also be drained completely by exploiting any weakness (where it doesn't perform optimally).
Thanks for the replies. I was thinking that there would be daily limits, so we could intervene if it was being exploited. That said I don't know much about this stuff other than I think liquidity may have to be artificially provided/incentivised/subsidised at the early stages in some manner.
https://changemoney.org/ for BitReserve their success is all about measuring BitAsset growth and adoption and I think the market is judging BTS by the growth and popularity of BitAssets too. We already have enough users to have much higher BitAsset CAP's and therefore a much higher valuation but we need to make them more attractive so I'm open to any mechanisms that do that even if it's at the expense of BTS holders via dilution. (Though I'm not a fan of using dilution for the merger or for most marketing initiatives at this stage, other than minebitshares.)
1224
General Discussion / Re: The DAC as a limited internal market maker
« on: April 16, 2015, 10:14:44 am »(Edit: The DAC could also stop if a total inventory limit was reached but in the process of getting to that may have provided enough liquidity to get the markets going.)
There is a better way of saying what you mean, which is: the DAC market maker must perform optimally - that is, make the right pricing and inventory choices under all market conditions and participants, informed or not.
I'm not hot on this stuff, but I think I'm saying the DAC market maker doesn't have to perform optimally at all.
It can just have a very wide spread, one that would have proved profitable to date. Even if it loses money or has to stop once it reaches a certain inventory limit, it could be a net value gain for the DAC if it provides confidence to BitAsset users that there is liquidity. (Imagine if some of the value the DAC is leaking on the merger was directed to subsidising BitAsset liquidity for 20 months instead.)
1225
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 10:00:08 am »
Sounds good. I would give privatised BitAssets a seperate prefix and seperate tab.
What about introducing maker/taker fees to the current BitAssets? (Or some other fee structure that aims to incentivize liquidity providers/market makers.)
The merger is costly and 6 months on delegate dilution has been largely ineffective at driving user growth and adding value imo, evidenced by all forum metrics trending down as well as the total BitAsset CAP declining too. Ergo the market was right on that one imo.
What about introducing maker/taker fees to the current BitAssets? (Or some other fee structure that aims to incentivize liquidity providers/market makers.)
Hopefully we get another 80% sale on the price of BitShares with this half hearted announcement, like the last time we tried aligning incentives and promoting growth (the merger announcement).
The merger is costly and 6 months on delegate dilution has been largely ineffective at driving user growth and adding value imo, evidenced by all forum metrics trending down as well as the total BitAsset CAP declining too. Ergo the market was right on that one imo.
1226
General Discussion / Re: The DAC as a limited internal market maker
« on: April 15, 2015, 07:36:07 pm »Market making is extraordinarily hard to get right. Informed traders will pick off your badly placed orders and cause you to gain inventory on one side or the other, which is highly undesirable as it introduces price risk.
Yeah. I mean I don't understand the ins and outs but basically you'll be buying when everyone wants to sell for a reason and vice versa, making you a long term loser unless your spread is very wide.
But there must be a spread that is wide enough to mitigate that risk (combined with a daily limit) right?
(Edit: The DAC could also stop if a total inventory limit was reached but in the process of getting to that may have provided enough liquidity to get the markets going.)
1227
General Discussion / Re: The DAC as a limited internal market maker
« on: April 15, 2015, 07:18:53 pm »
2 months later and I don't really see the bots/any meaningful liquidity. I would use BitAssets more if there was strong buy & sell walls either side.
Would BTS have lost money to date, acting as a market maker at 0.95 & 1.05 with a maximum daily limit?
Would BTS have lost money to date, acting as a market maker at 0.95 & 1.05 with a maximum daily limit?
1228
General Discussion / Re: Why BitShares isn't Taking off and What we are doing about it.
« on: April 15, 2015, 04:58:43 pm »
I think the built in referral program is a great idea and will result in more marketing success than is currently achieved via the delegate system as marketers and third parties will be paid for results they actually achieve.
However BTS has a product problem rather than a marketing problem at this stage as most have said.
We've actually already acquired enough users imo in the form of BTS shareholders to drive the BitAsset CAP to the $5-10 million range and hence a much stronger BTS valuation and it will grow easily from there.
I also think if the effect on liquidity won't be dire, making the 30 day cover rule much longer would be better.
I really liked helikoperben's analysis https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15692.msg201882.html#msg201882
However BTS has a product problem rather than a marketing problem at this stage as most have said.
We've actually already acquired enough users imo in the form of BTS shareholders to drive the BitAsset CAP to the $5-10 million range and hence a much stronger BTS valuation and it will grow easily from there.
I also think if the effect on liquidity won't be dire, making the 30 day cover rule much longer would be better.
I really liked helikoperben's analysis https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15692.msg201882.html#msg201882
1229
General Discussion / Re: Geometric brownian motion feed price
« on: April 15, 2015, 04:44:53 pm »Not a good idea. Use the Playshares chain for gambling. Stick to serious stuff for a serious chain or you open Bitshares up to being declared a gambling platform.
I disagree. All publicity is good publicity and increasing retention is also good.
Besides, this idea has merit beyond gambling - it is interesting from a different point of view, in that it would create the first market in the world where there can be no insider trading.
I'm not sure how popular it will be, but I like the idea.
Anything that gives BTS an additional use/market without requiring a lot of development time, I'm in favour of.
It would be cool if it was only accessible with BitAssets so if you wanted to play you would have to acquire BitAssets, thereby increasing BitAssets in circulation. (Most would keep their gains in the BitAsset too.)
1230
General Discussion / Re: Are any BitAsset models more competitive or worth more than BitShares?
« on: April 08, 2015, 12:38:46 pm »Analyzing your proposal, what you're really suggesting is price pumping without long term vision for a sustainable DAC. Your proposed changes are shortsighted like bring in more community members with new slogans like "no dilution" and a new flashy brand, and without consideration for things that matter more, like dev resources, sustainable consensus mechanisms, and launching BitAsset markets. I don't appreciate the proposed pumping and fear mongering because it detracts from those who are here to actually make this a success with the time and diligence required. Your proposal shows clear impatience. Luckily, there is a stop coming up in five minutes, you are welcome to get off and board the next train.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, just advising people to get off is very popular round here.
All is swell.
If not, sell.
Now that actually turned out to be fantastic investment advice.
Thanks for the feedback though.
Option 1: Unfortunately development costs money, we've largely run out of it. A team with $1 million+ in development funds and low overheads developing a BitAsset competitor could potentially be much more competitive than BTS accessing 15k a month via dilution that has a merger draining value too. I think that's the most likely competitor. I don't think there's any price pumping there, it's just maths, business and common sense.
Option 2: Is a lot about brand image, correct. Believe it or not, it's critical for a successful business. There's also the fact that a DAC accessing 15k via dilution per month and with up to a 100k per month drain on the share price is not much more competitive than a no dilution DAC & less popular. A new brand may have a higher chance of long term success as well as the potential for lucrative short term gains. I believe a no dilution DAC, valued at $80 million like BTSX was with fees in the $0.02-0.05 can certainly be self sustaining, competitive and not some sort of price pump.
Option 3: Is about discussing a range of big changes to BTS. The time to do that is not when BTS falls to $10 million and everyone is panicking but before. If the merger doesn't add value and is overly expensive and we're below $10 million, yes I'd consider cancelling it. If dilution for non developers is not adding value, getting the share supply below 2.5 Billion and only employing developers (& paying them more) may be worth a try. If there are options like revenue sharing that could lighten the burden on shareholders and introduce genuine free market competition into BTS as opposed to who is the best at getting votes, then yes consider that too . All of these could potentially improve BTS at a foundational level and would not be price pumping imo.
The new BTS may well be successful just as it is. Well done to all the people who believe in the fundamentals and are working diligently to make it a long term success and make positive contributions even in the face of up to 80% losses. Apologies for investors like me that tend to be overly critical in a long and sustained price decline.
