Quote from: gordonhucn on October 14, 2014, 04:06:20 pm

It doesn't make sense to me. The fee will force people either sell their unclaimed stakes or transfer the stakes once awhile , neither way you can get 5% fee from them, unless they don't know about it at all. Which means although this can be announced as widely as possible but the punishments will only drop to the people who hasn't heard it, it still feels morally not right.

People with unclaimed stakes paid for their stakes as everyone else, they are being more supportive to the whole market than the dumpers at least.

The 5% inactivity fee is not new & I don't think it's immoral, it is part of the original design, I think it's been in all the whitepapers so they knew about it.

Also even if it just made people claim their original stake, that's good for helping keep the DAC decentralised by having more stake voting once in a while.

Quote from: Rune on October 14, 2014, 11:58:28 am

Quote from: Gonzo on October 14, 2014, 11:47:02 am

Quote from: Rune on October 14, 2014, 11:09:00 am

Quote from: Gonzo on October 14, 2014, 10:38:34 am

Like luckybit said, in order to get into eBay we just need to create demand. 

Think viral:

Begin to checkout, put an item in the cart, get stuck, request help from merchant, ask merchant if he accepts BitUSD, tell him you want to pay in BitUSD and it's cheaper for both of you, show him an on-ramp link, tell him you'll buy when he can accept it, rinse, repeat.  There's a lot more potential for this on eBay than anywhere else


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you are describing is an example of something that isn't real demand.

If people here really are naive enough to think that kickstarting adoption is is just a matter of "thinking big", then the target market should be taobao rather than eBay. BitUSD actually has a decent USP for international trade, AND the bitshares community is really big in China.

But in the end a decentralized solution loses most of its advantage when marketed to a centralized marketplace where everyone have to be in compliance anyway.

It is irrational to ignore that if I demand a product via bitUSD, then I have created demand for bitUSD

This is exactly how Bitcoin got its way into overstock..

You misunderstand what demand means in economic terms. It means that you are actually willing and able to buy something at a given price. It doesn't mean spamming or tricking people to think there is demand. Unless you're actually ready to buy things with bitUSD if it was available, yet not willing to buy them with other means, then there is demand for bitUSD. Also, I highly doubt spamming was a big factor in getting on overstock, especially considering how Patrick Byrne seems to ideologically support bitcoin.

demand for BitUSD should be thought about same way there is demand for paypal and then I think you may understand how this fits your economic definition

This is demand for escrow service, not product.  Also what you see as "spam" should be thought marketing.  Read my steps to eBay exposure more closely and you'll see it's about using BitUSD to /buy/ product


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say it helped a lot that the Overstock CEO was alt-coin favourable. I'm sure Overstock also took into account Bitcoins CAP and distribution. A small CAP low distribution payment option badgering merchants is unlikely to create demand.

What might create demand is a carefully prepared proposal that lays out the MANY advantages to retailers & offers technical support & 'perhaps' a retailer incentive. (BitUSD is really huge for retailers especially if someone in their supply chain accepts it too.) Then let retailers offer it to consumers as a payment option because of how much consumers starting to use it benefits the retailer.

While I think the main markets we should focus on bootstrapping are the ones that could easily adopt or have a need for us (Alt-coin market & perhaps uses like OB, highly inflationary countries (just approach existing Bitcoin partners/exchanges there) & perhaps traders) vs. throwing money at mainstream when our perceived current advantages to them are small and where you can spend millions and get nowhere. However looking at the feedback regarding OB's stage of development, community and likely initial market size, it's becoming less appealing or credible as an immediate viral insertion point imo.

Also though you can argue SR gave Bitcoin its start & free publicity. I would say much of Bitcoin's wider adoption wasn't because of SR but in spite of the negative SR public perception and thanks to the Cyprus catalyst.

Now that crypto is already in the public consciousness and has a lot of penetration thanks to Bitcoin, we don't need SR as a similar leaping point. (After this marketing push, we may well have a similar CAP & adoption to BTC pre-Cyprus.) Considering the huge leap forward BitAssets are, I actually agree with trying to hook a big fish in some meaningful way particularly from a marketing and brand image POV.

We want a launch that presents BTSX as a global mainstream contender.

Where I didn't like the mainstream strategy is that I felt if BTSX wasn't at a stage where consumers were ready for it, in terms of track record, risk, utility and ease of use then I wouldn't throw too much money at incentives but rather more targetable niches and general development and then let the existing alt-coin market & other niches spread it more organically as it developed over the following year and only resort to major incentives after analysing feedback or if we smelled a big competitor.

Yeah you're in the eye of the storm imo.

A more stable BitAsset system with more yield and greater variety, plus a marketing push and greater BitAsset utility is incoming!

I'm personally still sceptical about some of the marketing strategy.
(They're targeting mainstream adoption and personally I think even with a $100 million budget you'd be pissing into the wind and I think rather trying to bootstrap the alt-coin market, high inflation countries with capital controls and then perhaps traders is probably a better approach.)

Either way considering that the peg works, plus there is enough shorting demand to generate significant BitAsset yield plus greater utility & marketing is incoming, plus we've scene how fast the devs can implement stuff. I actually think BTSX at $54 million today is even better value than it was at $18 million before people knew if the peg & system would work.

I think it had logic problems FT wasn't able to resolve.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I don't think it ever looked to be gaining traction anyway.

I would argue even without issues, LTS would have struggled to compete with a DAC that had a greater distribution to DAC savvy investors + perhaps a separate pre-sale as the Bitcoin & Dogecoin airdrops would have exerted consistent selling pressure which would discourage adoption and investment. The 30% dev allocation would have likely made it centralised in practice also giving it little hope for mass adoption. (Whereas DAC savvy guys would likely increase their positions in the most promising DAC's as well as added value in other ways, including perhaps more interest & input from the BitShares devs.)

Quote from: toast on October 12, 2014, 06:37:28 pm

It took 5 tweets but they admitted it's systemic and not counterparty risk

GOOD JOB!!

 

I have a somewhat related question.  I haven't claimed the BitsharesX I am entitled to from my Angle Shares donations yet.  The reason for this is two-fold: the BitsharesX client doesn't run on my Mac (OSX 10.6. and I don't know of a simple paper storage method available for when I do claim my BitsharesX.  It will probably take me a full day or two to upgrade my operating system and sort these issues out, which I don't have the time for and don't foresee having the time for anytime soon.

So the question, aside from this proposed inactivity fee, is there a problem with waiting to claim my BitsharesX?  Will it always be waiting for me to claim it or are there plans to burn or redistribute it after a period of time?  I can't imagine there are, but I want to be sure.

As far as I know your BTSX is safe except for the potential of a 5% annual inactivity fee.
(Though I would recommend claiming them when it becomes possible possible for you to avoid the worry and as it helps decentralise the DAC when your stake is occasionally voting. Also don't forget you also have shares in BitShares DNS & BitShares Music etc.)

Applying the inactivity fee only to unclaimed stake is ridiculous. But an inactivity fee is most definitely needed, if the DAC is to survive long term and ensure long term voting. People who wish to park their wealth could have a special command that forfeits their voting rights and makes it publicly possible to see the total amount of coin in non-voting, long term storage.

That issue will be more contentious because even though it was part of the original design it may not be great for marketing etc. Either way it can be approached as a separate issue.

I think though people who would like to avoid dilution but still would like BTSX to be competitive with plans like this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.msg123029#msg123029 may support this measure and it would help give BTSX a potential long term funding source that keeps within the original design.