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

Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 09, 2015, 05:14:30 pm

What happens when you reach your goal?  Will you still refund the donations made after $150k with 15% yield?  What if you had 500k dumped on your site.  Is there anything preventing you from meeting the target of 15% yield for 500K in donations?

If we get 500k dumped then that will be the least of our worries . We would be able to integrate Bitcoin much faster, create a decentralized bridging service, and decentralize the server setup into an oracle setup. Not to mention that we could start with the modularization of the system for future plugins too. If anything like that happens we'll figure out an even better way to compensate everybody!

Assuming though we simply pass the 130k goal, based on our calculation and the current BTS exchange rate up to 300k USD worth of MOONFUNDS should be no problem with 5 delegates.

Does that address your concerns?

Yeah thats great.  Btw what's your story?  How did you find out about bitshares?  And why bitshares?  Any other projects you guys worked on before you came here?

Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 07, 2015, 12:48:07 pm

How would this necessarily increase demand and therefore liquidity in Bitgold? If Cyptosmith is immediately exchange into physical-- are you keeping the bitgold? 

If this grows into a larger scale- this would seperate our product offering from bitgold.com and btireserve.

It creates an organic use for all bitAssets including bitgold.  But of course over time people who buy real gold with bitAssets will also become more comfortable converting a portion of their physical gold instead to bitgold and other BitAssets because they will get interest and will not have to pay for physical storage.

It will become another, more fair way to hedge.

This is essentially a physical offramp and leaks money from the system.  This needs to be discussed more since the velocity of money leaving the system via physical assets may not be give immediate benefits to us in the short-term.  At worst it cancels out (or takes value out of the system if we are subsidizing with delegate pay).  Unless the mining pool says: 50% mined with given as bitgold and the other 50% is given as physical gold. 

Quote from: yellowecho on April 03, 2015, 04:12:14 pm

I sure hope you're right because the community needs a morale booster now more than ever.  The tidal wave has been feeling more like this lately:   

Congratulations...you are SAVED!

Touche

Very nice yellowecho.  Particularly like the mid-chart.  Cass should add that in. 

Going forward i was hoping that we would be able to add web services to delegate nodes to do even more things.. ofcourse not through the HTTP server on the wallet but perhaps a hosted service either on the same node or somehow connected, maybe making a mesh network b etween all 101 delegates to allow a "decentralized" web app experience to do social logins, single sign on apps like getclef.com and other things not possible with any other coin (use our edge). If we get away from this paradigm we will end up with a few delegates hosting the services and being the same as any other central service provider... so not any better.

Say there was a prediction market for what will MSFT stock price be in 1Q 2016.  Your answer that it is a simple token is inconsistent with BITUSD, which is a IOU.  The American dollar is an IOU.  However securities are fungible certification.  Its a legalized and protected ownership in a publicily traded company.  Now if you started offering IOU's for registered stocked, your walking into a legal minefield.The SEC will say it has the right to govern because you are stepping in their regulated court.  Not to mention the federal financial bodies will see it as an attempt to avoid financial laws through these alternative payment pathways and will follow up with hefty suits.  Look it up.  Just google SEC fines for unregistered securities.  Who would they fine?  It would be the delegates since they are managing and administering the PM's. 

Beware legislative and regulatory risk is the most detrimental of risks.  It will put you out of business if you don't take it seriously. 

Your vision for delegates is a whole another conversation. 

I'm sure it will be judges will be selected by the pm creator.  You could also have judges elected in by the bitshares community but this voting will be completely separate from delegate voting.  just an option that would serve a need and doesn't have to be the best.

@Jsidhu

Delegates should not be the ones resolving markets.  It would surprise me if Bytemaster was not on agreement with this.  They should have a limited role, (think limited governance like how the founding fathers started the country) which is signing transactions.  Giving them anything more would invite unchecked power.  Information markets are for the lack of a better word going to be extremely powerful paradigm.  Your turning the bitshares system into a democracy, which is dangerous when confronted with mob mentality. 

Bytemaster has proposed a Judge slate which can be proportedly be voted in by people.  But these judges are not to be confused with the role of a delegate.  They are only to resolve markets, not sign transactions.  I think judges are fine, and a good enough compromise in the short term.  Wouldn't you agree with this?