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.
In other words, every bond is the combination of a loan and an option to buy the collateral at the payoff price.
We need businesses which need BTA.
People who use BTA to save their money for 5 % yield, can easily find other way to get that amount yield.
What kind of people we want attract? the people just hold BTA and not use it, or the people use it and spread it everywhere?
The businesses on bitshares are much precious than people doing saving. I do not know whether you think so too.
To make a wise choice on the yield vs no-yield option for BTA 2.0, it is important to consider what will give bitShares the best ongoing advantage in the pegged currency space.
The key is to remember that we are always in competition with others. It's not a good enough argument to say yield can be provided in the bond market, so no yield is required in BTA 2.0, if it turns out that a competitor can create a yield-earning equivalent and also have a bond market, a combination that may be superior to our own.
Imagine if a bank, in the face of competition against other banks that were offering interest on their at-call accounts, took the stance that they did not need to offer interest because customers could get interest in their term deposits instead. How do you think that bank might fare?
It is valid to compare the yield and no-yield options, and decide on one as being a better product than the other. Because then we are saying that if a competitor develops the yield option, then we are comfortable we still have a better product. We have to imagine that anything we could build could be built by others, and we need to believe we have the best product available.
This is a fair point.
