Is there something like this in the works for bitUSD? 

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2mou46/this_is_happening_the_micropayments_made_easy/

 - Post-dilution/sharedrop fallout and confusion
 - Whales dumping in such a small market can suppress the price or pump it even while majority market sentiment remains largely unchanged
 - Clarification from devs that the light clients/mobile wallets/other upgrades wont allow marketing to start until early next year


Bitcoin going up or down isn't any stronger a factor now than it was while bitshares was outpacing the alt coins in an upward direction.  Bitcoin has a big influence on BTS price but is not important in deciding why the price is going down consistently and faster than most other alts which also rise and fall with the bitcoin tide.

All in all the immediate future (rest of 2014) is uncertain, but that's not long at all and you never know how cautious people are to not miss the expected rise.  With such as small cap it only takes a few million to flow into BTS to raise the price massively.  A successful marketing campaign that raises bitasset usage and volume up dramatically will call the attention of a giant pile of money come running and pour itself into BTS.  That's what I am betting on.

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.

Thanks!  Will give this a listen as soon as I can.

Sadly because bitshares doesn't work on my old Macos 10.6.8 I can't access my BTS on my normal machine, which means I have to store them a different one, so I can't vote as often as I otherwise would.  I'll vote for you as soon as I get the chance next week...

Should there be a maintain fee for artist coins like suggested by Alt here?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11316.0

Is there anything stopping an artist selling their artist coins directly to their fans on their own website and not using bitUSD, resulting in NOTE holders getting nothing?

Many artists would want to sell their artist coins to their fans this way, rather than having a new link to promote to a peertracks URL.

I have concerns about how NOTEs gain value.  Depending on a tiny fee when a track is bought on peertracks seems not enough. 

What if 1% of all artist coins were snapshotted to NOTE holders?  They could be vested, with a gradual release time.  That would be a much better source of income.  Note holders could get to log in with their steak to access their many artist coins. 

Also I would vote in favour of merging with BTS and using the BTS blockchain.  It's a bit of a shame this isn't what happened already.  Keeping up with another 101 delegates will be really annoying, and it creates the issue of peertracks bitUSD keeping to its peg and having to attract shorters to have that market functioning. 

ok thanks.  Just saw theres a 3rd party dacs forum section, nevermind.

I don't know much about the relationship of Bitshares + Dac Sun but doesn't it makes sense to attempt to continue the relationship? They already know how to work with bitshares code and have proven themselves capable and trustworthy, why end that relationship?  They are ideal delegates.  Do they this option exists?  Do they want it?  Why lose them now?