However, the privatized bitAsset idea could circumvent that issue to some extend. I am looking more at this as bitUSD with private fee profits and legally compliant whitelisting. It's a middleground between gateway IOUs and true bitUSD. The more I think about it the more it seems that privatized bitAssets with whitelisting capability + gatways for stocks and bonds + synthetic order books should be V1.0.

As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community. Companies are islands of strict non-competition in markets. Think about it, if we are so much pro-market, why are companies command-and-controle structures without any internal markets? It's simple: For a social organization to be a company it needs to leverage information asymmetry, which it then bridges in the open market for profit. DACs don;t have information asymmetry, hence they cannot be companies. At most, they can be community/private utilities.

How would this work?  You have a problem when a established player does decide to offering a transparent feed and their own private bitusd.  Anybody can come in and undercut them leech their feed and offering another private bitusd w/o whitelisting.  What can any system like this get off the ground?

Its fine if yield goes away.  It can be re-introduced with loans and leveraging like in Bitfinex.  I'm sure that's the aim.  And yield in this matter would be much larger. 

Quote from: tonyk2 on April 16, 2015, 09:14:08 pm

Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 16, 2015, 08:38:08 pm

Also does forced settlement at feed price trigger margin calls as well?  If so, this could be part of a black swan attack.  A whale could drive the price direction opposite of the price feed, and then perform a forced settlement in another account; collapsing the entire market into a black swan trigger.

If a whale (or anyone) sell bitAsset below the reasonable price (generally about feed) - you just buy the bitAsset and immediate request settlement/liquidation - pocketing the money and punishing the attacker. works real nice actually.

The attacker isn't who is punished unless he happens to be least collateralized.   The 24 hour+ delay means you cannot depend upon errors in the price feed to guarantee a profit.   But use, this basically means that the market has "infinite" liquidity for BitUSD at ~1% of the feed price.

So its doing away with the concept of margin calls and replacing it with forced settlement.  Unlike a margin call, which is triggered whenever the spot price (feed price in this case) moves beyond collateral amt, a forced settlement needs to meet two conditions: 1) authorization by a long holder and 2) being an account with least collateralize amt. 

bytemaster, would you elaborate in which aspect(s) are bitshare(s) lacking, and whether the current design has nonrecoverable fatal flaws?

ditto

Are you proposing that people be capped in to a position for 6 months? As in I cant just hold bitUSD for ever, I will get assigned BTS after 6 months? Or are you saying once i choose BitUSD, i cant move freely between bts and bitUSD except every six months?

What I am guessing is that there are three markets.  If you buy the BitUSD market and not the CDF one, you will have stability without a investment expiration. It will be continuous.   

Guys, you are stuck with the idea of alternative BitUSDs. In this point of time, nobody would even try to compete with the original BitUSD. It just makes no sense.

Instead try to imagine User Pegged Assets as a feature, which enables creation of BitIndexes and BitStocks. Wouldn't this be useful?

What does it matter.  Truthcoin will be able to provide a trusted feed.   This problem will be solved before Bitshares understands what it is in the first place. 

Any feed provided outside of Truthcoin will be inferior and therefore isn't worth any higher trading feeds for marketing or support.

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/587451935239770112

Yes, and the best marketed/supported one would emerge the winner and gain huge profits from trading fees.

In some capacity this will be needed.  However, this is different from saying that Bitusd in the future will be able to work without feeds; not to mention how in the past you argued that bitshares would function without pegged assets.  Now your proposing a system that is entirely reliant on feeds.  This a farcry from a year ago.   

I think your confusing marketing for a viable business model.  Feeds are a commodity.  This service is in perfect market.  In a perfectly competitive market there is little differences between producers.  What drives your sales (eg. trading feeds is lower costs) is cost cutting.  There will not be a move towards providing better quality service.  The mantra will always be lower the cost by any means.  Even if a team did spend money for marketing and support, via high acquisition costs, they would have brought eyes to Bitshares eco-system, opening up the door for that customer to find a cheaper alternative.  If the customers use bitshares enough, they will hear about the cheaper alternative.  The switching costs are low, threat of substitutes are high.  Therefore marketing and support does not add value. Your acquired customers will just leak it to the opponent. I think it is just something you will have to consider. 

Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 14, 2015, 02:11:08 pm

Not really excited about the list here.  How about the Heng Seng index to bring in the Chinese investors?  This may be out of bounds of SEC regulations

Would be great, but who wants to pay 500k BTS to register HSI? (Same goes for any stock/index btw, I'm not picking on Heng Seng)

Let's crowd fund it.  Its roughly $2200 at todays prices.  If everyone puts in a 3 bucks, we can do it with 750 members.  You can set this up on your site.