Seems metaexchange could be the one to achieve it first, if there is a solution for the fees issue

Quote from: Akado on January 18, 2016, 07:34:00 pm

Quote from: fuzzy on January 18, 2016, 06:38:42 pm

What if we made it free for top 10 cryptos to add their bitasset to our exchange free of charge or at significant discounts?  Then we would be able to benefit from all top 10 coin's media connections as they all work hard to let everyone know they are one of the first on our decentralized market pegged asset system

I think the problem is top cryptos are already established and are not struggling to get to new exchanges. Maybe new coins or a not so big one is and that will be the one with more interest in joining our DEX. Those should be our target.

You see, alts come and go, this generation of alts or whatever you want to call them are on Polo, Cryptsy, etc
If we start getting the new ones on our DEX, they will grow here and our DEX will be the "go to" spot to trade alts. We start this culture of adding and helping new alts and maybe in a year we will already be known as one of the top exchanges to trade alts. Of course we will have lots of different assets, pump and dump coins, etc but what matters is bringing in users.

With time alts will want to join our DEX and as we grow this culture, our volume will grow to and we might be able to compete with Polo or Btc38

nothing keeping us from doing that too.  but the smaller coins will not bring media attention until they grow.  as far as big coins not needing new exchanges...that might be a dangerous assumption. 

I mean we have been in the top 10 for how long and we still wish we were on every exchange possible.

I mean that might not be a priority for them, specially when integrating on a project that they see as competition, even if our objectives are completely different.

What if we made it free for top 10 cryptos to add their bitasset to our exchange free of charge or at significant discounts?  Then we would be able to benefit from all top 10 coin's media connections as they all work hard to let everyone know they are one of the first on our decentralized market pegged asset system

I think the problem is top cryptos are already established and are not struggling to get to new exchanges. Maybe new coins or a not so big one is and that will be the one with more interest in joining our DEX. Those should be our target.

You see, alts come and go, this generation of alts or whatever you want to call them are on Polo, Cryptsy, etc
If we start getting the new ones on our DEX, they will grow here and our DEX will be the "go to" spot to trade alts. We start this culture of adding and helping new alts and maybe in a year we will already be known as one of the top exchanges to trade alts. Of course we will have lots of different assets, pump and dump coins, etc but what matters is bringing in users.

With time alts will want to join our DEX and as we grow this culture, our volume will grow to and we might be able to compete with Polo or Btc38

Quote from: Akado on January 18, 2016, 04:35:02 pm

The problems raised by the chinese was regarding dice being implemented in our chain directly. If some service was to add bitAssets I don't see any problem with it. They can gamble with bitassets the same way they already can with bitcoin so that argument isn't really valid I think..

What do you think would be the best option? Sites using bitassets or uias? bitassets need 200% collateral to be created... but since casinos usually pool user's funds and it's like they're playing against each other I think the collateral isn't really an issue here.

This could be one of the best things to happen to BitShares (in theory). It's been proven gambling plays a hue factor in a coins liquidity. Plus it adds to the utility our asset would have and the peg could become better.

The beauty of being on BTS + Smartcoins is that you have no/low risk of hit and runs, seizures, theft which are the problems that plague BTC gambling sites as well as being provably fair & stable. Also Ethereum, including Vitalik himself I believe has written gambling related smart contracts to bring some of those blockchain benefits to gambling, so that's where we're headed anyway.

In terms of UIAs/Smartcoins. I'd like to have a collateral backed smartcoin  but explore ways that the collateral could be made lower and the peg would still hold. (I recently mentioned directing trading fees to the collateral pool and perhaps there's some elements of parking we could take from NuBits too.)

UIA's don't have the same decentralized advantages. So a third party site may as well using an existing option like Tether or even NuBits vs. a UIA issued on BTS.

But I believe atm that's not possible. Funds cannot be taken if they stay on your wallet. Atm you'd probably need to deposit funds on the Dice's pool to be used as bank roll. Then you withdraw. For that you'd need a decentralized Dice. I was talking about current dice sites using our smartcoins.

I believe this could be done in a reasonably easy way.. Though I'm not 100% how they work but a dice site uses users funds as bank roll so you have your biteur or bitusd or bitcnny and send it to the dice's deposit address. It adds to the pool. Then you can play with it. It's up to the site to limit the maximum bet and payout according to how much funds the bank roll has and they all already do that.

I think unlike exchanges, this is way more simple for dice site's and could be achieved. The purpose here would not have your funds safe but bring utility to smartcoins solving the chicken and egg problem.

bitAssets would be ideal for this! With CCEDK's bridge couldn't someone just get bitEUR for example on their favourite dice site too? That would be a major combo.

Thanks I edited the post to avoid confusion

So where does this stand now? Any agreement reached?

Quote from: Akado on January 17, 2016, 11:40:17 pm

... What we're lacking atm is utility, something that feels a need. Until we have Bond Markets, Prediction Markets or companies using BitShares as a platform (ie exchanges), we won't see any price rise.

We do have utility-based products - price-stable bitUSD/bitCNY/bitEUR etc and a decentralised exchange. 

Quote from: Akado on January 17, 2016, 11:40:17 pm

We might have the best chain and technology but it's pretty much half baked. It's not accessible or user friendly so it just isn't used. It will require more time for that.

Our bitassets have little liquidities and not closely pegged.  Our DEX has no on/off ramps (btc<->fiat, bts<->fiat) and no counterparty-risk-free btc<->bts and altcoin<->bts exchanges.  Naturally, users are not going to use them.  'Half-baked' may be too harsh but we are certainly 'not done' yet.

I really don't see a difference between existing no product or a product with defect. If assets are not pegged they won't be seen as a good product and won't be used. Chicken and egg problem like we all know but outsiders don't care about this. They want a peg and that's it.

Well, they're incomplete atm. Or at least, not being used to their full potential. What good is any tech if it can't be used? We might use it, we might do that little effort but then again, outside users won't care.

But I believe we're really at the beginning. It's like BitShares got a reset. Difference is now it seems to have more potential. It's up to us to take that potential to the max.

Btw @cube related to on/off bridges CCEDK is working on doing that. You deposit fiat and you get credit open.eur, open.usd, etc on your bts wallet.