1
General Discussion / Re: Peerplays Announcement - BTS Snapshot Date
« on: August 12, 2016, 04:39:18 pm »
The balances from 1.0 BTS that were not yet imported in 2.0 will not be sharedroped ?
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.
2
General Discussion / Re: Is Diluting BTS 2.5% for +5% BitAsset Yield very low cost to Shareholders?
« on: February 21, 2016, 11:35:21 am »Lots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process?QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.
It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.
Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,
otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.
This is not true imo. When PPC offers 1% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in.
All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting and the net result is neutral.
Similarly when BTS offers 2.5% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in.
All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting (yield harvesting) and the net result is neutral.
because in crypto 1% means nothing when the coin fluctuates hundreds % in value, but imagine you would mint 10% every day. the value of the coin
would go down unless someone would be be buying them or the minters would keep them all.
The point is lets not pretend this is magic money where you can create more of it
without having new investors coming in and keep the price steady.
In bitcoin it is the same. There have to be new buyers for new minted coins.
But bitcoin does not provide yields to the holders and especially not on derived assets.
3
General Discussion / Re: Is Diluting BTS 2.5% for +5% BitAsset Yield very low cost to Shareholders?
« on: February 21, 2016, 11:18:48 am »Lots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process?QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.
It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.
those POS coins do not generate yield on derived assets, so they can provide whatever fixed yield they
want.
in BTS 1.0 the yield was financed from shorters, it was a bit ponzi too, but not so evident.
Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,
otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.
4
General Discussion / Re: Is Diluting BTS 2.5% for +5% BitAsset Yield very low cost to Shareholders?
« on: February 21, 2016, 10:19:35 am »
This is nothing more than a proposal for elaborate ponzi scheme - or it will
be perceived so by many. The yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors,
when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.
There is not a problem with demand , there is a problem with supply
NO one will be incentivized by this to short and sell USD especialy after
they can get 5% yield on it.
It will not move bts from exchanges - exchanges will simply implement shorting
and yield harvesting for those who keep bts at them.
At least BM proposal for Subsidizing Market Liquidity is for jumpstarting of
liquidity. Eventualy later the subsidy can be removed.
In case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
be perceived so by many. The yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors,
when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.
There is not a problem with demand , there is a problem with supply
NO one will be incentivized by this to short and sell USD especialy after
they can get 5% yield on it.
It will not move bts from exchanges - exchanges will simply implement shorting
and yield harvesting for those who keep bts at them.
At least BM proposal for Subsidizing Market Liquidity is for jumpstarting of
liquidity. Eventualy later the subsidy can be removed.
In case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
5
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:54:35 am »found no reason to support this.
users trade because they need to trade, because the need to get something by selling something else.
so the key point is to creat the real demand.
to reward the trading activity will distorte the encouragement,and make the system more complex with no necessity.
Its not to reward market activity but to reward market makers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
6
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 20, 2016, 08:41:40 pm »It's not too good if one winner wins all prizes.
Some improvements:
* to be qualify for reward, the price should be within say 3% of feed price
* when distributing the reward, weight by for example duration*quantity but not by quantity only (what if a whale places orders every block? so a minimum duration is needed? if 10 minutes is too long, how about 1 minute?)
* weight by log(quantity) instead of quantity so smaller participants will earn relatively more rewards than whales (decreasing edge effect). (but what if a whale places thousands of orders?)
Thoughts?
//update: edited the 2nd rule
3% of feed price - it should be set by market forces, not by comitee. too small and it wont work,
too big and it is useless.
why small participants should earn more ? give more to the poor ?
7
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 20, 2016, 07:55:32 pm »True but I thought we wanted to stimulate meaningful liquidity and not just give some money to the whales. My bad than - mission accomplished:What Shentist and abit said.
You do not have to be first on the orderbook if you are a whale and the reward is anywhere meaningful. You buy the few small orders before yours (say 200-500USD total) and self-fill your 15-20K USD. The daily reward is mostly yours. You can even replace the orders that you bought at the same prices.
If the reward is not meaningful... well it will not have the impact you want, at all.
If this strategy would be profitable for a whale, it is reasonable to expect another whale will
come to compete with this whale.
if CNX wants to implemet it for free, there is no harm to test it on one asset first ... bitUSD
and see if/how it works.
Grand Plan:
1. feed the whales by dilution - DONE!
2. ?
If two or more whales compete for the reward, they will probably create meaningful liquidity.
Is it better to dilute on this or on development of more features that nobody will eventually use ?
If this works and creates liquidity, it is what everyone here wanted in the first place - liquid bitAssets.
8
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 20, 2016, 07:31:54 pm »What Shentist and abit said.
You do not have to be first on the orderbook if you are a whale and the reward is anywhere meaningful. You buy the few small orders before yours (say 200-500USD total) and self-fill your 15-20K USD. The daily reward is mostly yours. You can even replace the orders that you bought at the same prices.
If the reward is not meaningful... well it will not have the impact you want, at all.
If this strategy would be profitable for a whale, it is reasonable to expect another whale will
come to compete with this whale.
if CNX wants to implemet it for free, there is no harm to test it on one asset first ... bitUSD
and see if/how it works.
9
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 14, 2015, 11:48:08 am »Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
You own the network, but who pays for development? lol Shareholders don't want to pay for development but don't like the idea of entrepreneurs having their cut when they pay for it.
No 90/10 because that way you won't attract entrepreneurs, unless you know someone who can throw 50k at BitShares like that, which you won't, ever.
Money doesn't fall from the sky. Naive and greedy thinking. That's exactly teh same line of thinking that keeps some projects from growing. People prefer being too greedy instead of sacrificing a little more to have more guarantees about their future.
The 90/10 was 10 for the network, 90 for the entrepreneurs. So it was very generous thinking.
I was asking why 80/20 , why there was never serious discussion about this crucial split number.
And I remember well in the original stealth proposal the split should revert in favour to network
after certain amount of fees collected. It was more generous and then become more greedy.
10
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 13, 2015, 06:01:55 pm »Thx @Xeldal and @yvv for your replies to my confusion. Your replies do help.4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
Agree with these concerns. Also concerning is that there is no business plan, especially in the case of the STEALTH asset. With no business plan results will be disappointing and may cause shareholders to take measures that circumvent that FBA. I see infighting in our future if profits for bts holders are not generously shared and if marketing is not well incentivized.
This again? C'mon, go back and read the thread. Stan addressed the reason for the 80 / 20 split. In essence, it has become the "traditional" split for most efforts around here, like the referral program. I see this objection as just cloaked envy.
As to "no business plan", that is a valid concern, but nothing new around here. Most everything done around here is fly by night / seat of the pants, without market research, prototypes or the usual planning that goes into most business ventures. It's entrepreneurship, but with more risk and speculation. Lots more intuition and guesswork.
Good to stop the discussion to label it as envy . And the explanation it is a tradition here lol .
Shareholders own the network, not the entrepreneurs. So it has to be an mutual agreement.
So again why not 90/10 instead ?
11
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 13, 2015, 05:16:47 pm »4. Are the fees generated from FBAs standalone, or is the 20% that goes to the network eligible for the refer program to also gain from the features? My concern is that larger and larger portions of the eco-system develop and what the refer program claims to offer starts to become less true as what refers can earn becomes marginalized against all the other areas of Bitshares where transactions are occurring.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. The purpose of referral program is to get more users. If we get more users more effectively with FBAs we don't have a need for a referral program.
I have nowhere seen the discussion or rationale about 80/20 split. Is it fair for the network
and shareholders ? Why not 90/10 or 50/50 ? Who sets ten numbers ? Should not this be
discusses or voted first what is fair for the network and for FBA holders ? Because
this percentage splits will be set forever !
12
General Discussion / Re: Cryptonomex to License Graphene and Graphene-UI under BSD License
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:31:18 am »Muse like chains do not need our userbase or expertise. They hire cnx, get users on peertracks, bitusd muse will get better liquidy .....I'm skeptical of this. I also dont want other chains to get for free what BTS
shareholders paid for. They can get them, as long as they pay too.
Couldn't we create some kind of consensus where if a chain wants certain
feature, has to pay something like 25% of it's original price by buying that
amount of BTS at the time and burning it or something?
and like it was mantioned, what keeps other projects from taking all we've paid
for and do it on a sidechain or whatever? a popular enough project like
ethereum and it's btc version could pull that off while leaving BTS in the dust
right? Even if their chains are not as optimized as ours, they still win the
popularity contest
Isn't that what the social consensus is doing for us? If a chain wants to have
our "support" and user base, they need to sharedrop their shares onto BTS
holders?
It all comes down to USER BASE! That's why whatsapp is worth $20B and we should
work as hard as possible to have the user base grow in our own chain.
13
General Discussion / Re: Cryptonomex to License Graphene and Graphene-UI under BSD License
« on: November 24, 2015, 05:47:12 am »Actually I am kind of a fan of a step less than that [It very well be my conservative thinking; or inability to see things as liberal as most here]
But free to everything BTS related should have been enough. I really do not want other chains (MUSE, PLAY, player X) getting the stuff that BTS holders paid for, for free.
If you want it - make yourself a DAPP on BTS, or pay to CNX or whoever developed that particular feature. The idea it to generally prevent even the thought of milk-cowing BTS, passing through anybody's mind.
Anyway, definitely better than the current state, in my view.
I agree.
and I'm not sure why everyone else celebrates
.This is good for CNX business and other potentialy competing chains they will work for but may not be so good for BTS holders. Anyone heard of rootstock, bitcoin ethereum sidechain coming in December ?
Anyone can take graphene code and create a sidechain where all bitasets are backed by BTC.
Goodbye BTS chain then.Without social consensus rule of sharedroping, I do not see is as a good thing.
ANd anyone remebers CNX promises that they will not allow directly competing chains ?
What happened to that ?
I suggest to licence it as BSD with the social consensus rule that every new chain has to be
approved by voting of of comitte members same way as worker proposals are ....
The success of voting would depend on the percentge of sharedrop and other conditions.
At any rate, why so rush now. It can be BSD licenced any time, but it can never be taken back
if it turns out to be a bad decision.
14
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 08:35:47 pm »I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent. There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex. I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain. I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol? We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol. Let's learn to crawl before we run.
Let's wait for others to innovate faster than us. Let's wait while people are looking for opportunities to put their money. Let's wait while we get enough liquidity (if that ever happens) to fund our products.
This is just the first DAPP on the bitshares blockchain. We have many other entrepreneurs wanting to put other Game changing DAPPS on Bitshares, but with only the right incentive structures.
The more diverse our funding models are, the more opportunities and investors we can attract. This is what we want. To find people of all types of risk profiles and appetites.
yes, but at least the price should be auctioned. Some other investor might be interested to pay more
for lifetime fees of certain feature. CNX gets paid for the work and the rest of the auctioned money
are burned or used to fund other features.
15
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 23, 2015, 07:33:15 pm »How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?
For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"
Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?
I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).
Would not be the other graphene blockchains have a an advantage over BTS chain in this way if GPL is required ?
In this way all profits from stealth transfers in muse go to the MUSE chain, whereas the
profits in BTS of stealth transfers go to the investor. Seem to be not a right balance of things.
