The "no dilution" folks aren't jumping ship. They just want to see this proposal limited to a hard and fast number. Because they're right; BTSX is supposed to decrease, not increase. I think this dilution will be very limited in scope, but it does need to be defined/capped.

And anybody who is smart will stick with BTSX, not AcmeFork DAC, since AcmeFork DAC will be too rigid. It will not have the business development potential that will now be possible with BTSX. We just need to see a capped limit on the dilution.

...
a) We need to go hard or go home, or someone else will come and blow our space up.  We don't want to be 2nd best in the space that we (I use that term generously... more like you) invented. ...

Suppose you could pay a *CREDIT CARD BILL* with BitUSD......
Suppose you could have Bill Pay mail a check to someone... with BitUSD...

Suppose this could happen this year or Q1 2015?

Quote from: Shentist on October 03, 2014, 06:39:52 am

guys i think i had a brilliant moment to solve the funding problem, but maybe i am just stupid 

suppose we have a friend like bytemaster discribed.
suppose we can fund this marketing stunt and everyone has a chance to profit from it.

suppose our friend will make this kind of card available and he gets people interested to buy 1.000 bitUSD for 1.000 USD and with his promise to pay them for using the card 100 bitUSD

his customer will transfer 1.000 USD and he needs to buy 1.000 bitUSD to load the card up.
- he needs a way to change his fiat Dollar in bitUSD, so this is a job maybe Invictus needs to handle
- the friend will send the USD to Invictus and Invictus will load the just opend customer card with 1.000 bitUSD

so far nothing special

but how will Invictus fund the whole operation?

- so Invictus needs 1.000 bitUSD but if they use 1.000 bitUSD of their own funds they will loose a lot of money, because they wanted to hold BTSX for the expected rise

but we have a source of untouched bitUSD - so overhang on SHORTS

at the moment a short can only be done at the feed price. for the marketing stunt we need an option to make it 20% above the feed price.

lets make an example

- Invictus needs for the deal 1.200 bitUSD for the created possible liabilities
- at they moment they could just buy 1.200 bit USD (suppose for 31,5 BTSX ) 37.800 BTSX at the open market
- but Invictus got only 31.500 BTSX worth from the friend
- so now we need a "marketing" SHORT (i suggest as long as the deal works only marketing shorts are accepted) to buy 1.200 bit USD for 31.500 BTSX while the real price is 37.800 BTSX
- the SHORT position will be greated with a "marketing price" of 26.5 BTSX and not on the feedprice of 31.5

- Invictus holds now 1.200 bitUSD and can easily fund the liabilities without risk
- done

Assumptions

- Invictus finds a solution for the fake user problem (maybe it is possible to create a new kind of account. If Invictus pays 1.000 bitUSD on this account, the account will be granted 100 bitUSD via spending. Like yield?)
- same problem is with our "friend" it needs to be a reliable source, because we could easily fund with this way his entry into BTSX and not the entry of many.
- SHORTS are willing to create with this discount, and in the beginning we had this problem, because anyone was really bullish, now with this bullish mind set you can support BTSX with only loosing 5 BTSX each created bitUSD. Would a SHORTER be willing to do it? I think yes, because from the created buying pressure BTSX will rise in value and the short will easily cover his position with a profit.
- for this kind of short no time restrictions wanted

I think this could be a solution for the egg and the hen problem and it is a really win- win situation.

At the moment we have only the problem that we have not many who are willing to buying bitUSD from the creators the shorts. Now we match them and the SHORT creators are willing to go into risk, but say will profit from the rise of BTSX big time.

what do you think?

wow - got total ignored. so this idea is bad? no, comments? and i thought i found the holy grail

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 03, 2014, 03:50:49 pm

Ok so back on topic.

• What sort of demographic would this attract?
• How "sticky" would said demographic be?
• What unique things could this demographic buy with BitUSD that they otherwise couldn't buy with FiatUSD?

I don't think this is the best use of opportunity cost, especially considering the precedent it will set. I think in terms of marketing, we should be thinking more along the lines of strategic seeding. Fortunately for us we've already got a great model to imitate: Bitcoin.

So, my question for the community is: what were the tipping points of early Bitcoin adoption?

In my opinion it isn't that they can buy different things with BitUSD, it is that they can use BTSX *like a bank* and all banks have checking accounts and savings account.  Almost all checking accounts have a "check card".   

Then our target market will be merchants... convince them to take BitUSD directly rather than pay 3%... merchants can then share the savings with customers.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 03, 2014, 06:32:15 am

I'm not sure what I think about this yet, but my immediate thoughts are not good. We need to think about all the possible implications, be 99% sure it will work, and go over all of the dynamics and economics of it. I think a lot of things could possibly go wrong, it will hurt our image in the cryptocurrency community, and as someone else already mentioned it will give the detractors more ammo to unload on us with.

It could make the rest of the Cryptocoin community look poorly on us as if we will print money at will on a whim. If we do it this once, what's to stop it from happening multiple times?

I have been using the fact BTSX is pretty much the only deflationary Cryptocoin in existence as a selling point. If we are printing money that selling point disappears and anyone that has been saying this looks foolish or like a liar.

If it doesn't work as well as intended it could end up being very expensive advertising, along with Oall of the other negative side effects as mentioned above. The new users getting free money could just dump it all on the market and it backfire on us.

It is possible the community could fork after making controversial decisions such as this.

It sounds like there will be some counter-party risks in this. If the printed money is stolen it could be dumped on the market, create a lot of bad press, or be used to attack the network.

These are all very good points. If we can print money on a whim now, what's stopping us from debasing the currency further in the future? I'm in favor of a referral program but I think it can be done with fees and not inflation as previously outlined in my first post (my proposal is based on traditional referral programs and is much less gimicky). Perhaps since BitShares X wasn't designed from the start to be market mined with inflation, it can't reasonably be done now.