Surely, you mean BitUSD adoption, not Bitcoin.

Quote from: Mtinie on October 07, 2014, 12:49:25 pm

Quote

Can someone explain to me though why they have such high volume, ($1 million 24 hours) but the CAP of Nubits is staying the same, this week, circa $2.3 million? I don't understand.

NuBits market capitalization isn't changing, because the supply of NBT hasn't measurably changed and the price per NBT hasn't fluctuated much. CMC reports market cap as:

 * Marketcap = Price x Total Supply
 * Prices are calculated by averaging the prices at the major exchanges weighted by volume

Source: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.0

Yes, since the price stays at $1 (until if/when it fails) then the market cap should closely resemble the demand for Nubits. If you guys remember prior to Nubits' launch they were soliciting for wealthy "market makers" to provide liquidity: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3190.0

Quote

The NuBits project needs people/entities with substantial funds available to them to conduct automated exchange operations on an ongoing basis. No capital gains or losses are possible within the scope of the needed trading activity. Your funds will not be passed to anyone working on the NuBits project. You will need to deposit funds in your own account at an exchange and run a trading bot we will provide. Your principle risk will be exchange default. You will be compensated a negotiated rate for this risk. You will not be in a position to fill this role unless your net worth is well into the six figures USD or higher. Full details about the role you may fill and the NuBits project itself will be given to qualified candidates. Persons/entities that fill this role will be eligible to purchase shares of our venture immediately.

If you look at the market cap history, you can see the market cap for Nubits started around $2 million dollars. In other words, I speculate that this ~$2 million is the above solicited market makers. Subtract $2 million from the current market cap... $2,282,597 ... and you get $282,597 worth of demand for Nubits. In other words $282,597 is the "real" market cap from demand by the end users.

In comparison, the bitUSD market cap is sitting at $357,394 a large majority of which (~100%?) is actual demand from end users and not as purely a mechanism to provide liquidity and temporarily stabilize the price to $1. We were first and gained somewhat of a network effect, we have the lead as far as demand goes, we had a much more fair release of BTSX vs Nushares, we have a better underlying solution for a stable decentralized cryptocurrency, and our "market peg" is pretty damn accurate as it is currently sitting at $0.990355 per bitUSD. There is literally nothing to worry about, although I think we can all agree we would benefit from some marketing.

The only thing that puzzles me is Nubits' volume which is insanely higher than ours. This can be manipulated though, so I wouldn't give too much credence in the volume being higher. For instance, today's volume of $858,192 worth of Nubits could be bought for $1716.384 since CCEDK/BTER both charge 0.2% trading fees. It is for that reason I think the market cap is a better indicator of demand. Since the Nubits "market makers" started out with about $2 million worth of Nubits, you can assume that they will indefinitely keep $2 million worth of Nubits to provide liquidity and hold the market peg temporarily until changing the interest rates or printing new money can bring it back to equilibrium.

Maybe I am completely wrong, but I find it hard to believe the volume is not being manipulated considering the dynamics of the situation and the kind of volume CMC has been reporting. The Nushares holders could compensate the market makers for the 0.2% trading fees by printing more money or raising interest rates, so again it could be easily manipulated by the whole system.

Another theory is that since Nubits is still very new, they are still playing around with the interest rates and printing of money ratios to hold the market peg at a $1. Perhaps they were at first (possibly they still are) setting the interest rates on Nubits too high which would cause more demand. Which would then cause the Nushares holders and the market makers to have to print and sell more Nubits to maintain the market peg, thus creating somewhat artificial volume by both the demand of too high interest rates and the selling of the printed Nubits to maintain the market peg.

So, I think the market cap is a better measurement of the success of bitUSD vs Nubits and more closely resembles demand from end users (minus the ~$2 mil market cap Nubits started at.)

Quote from: Gonzo on October 06, 2014, 10:50:34 pm

We should rally to fight this, let others know who was first

Don't be emotionally foolish. We should support this. No one cares who thought of something first but who does it best.

Overstock is about to pump massive amounts of money and resources into an effort we all support. There is enough money to make people on this forum millionaires or even billionaires.

Overstock cannot do what Bitshares X can do because Overstock is a centralized company. Months ago we were talking about how we needed an IOU Gateway, someone to turn our BitAssets into legal securities. It was always the case that we needed a centralized company to do this.

We should connect with Overstock to get them to provide an exit out of Bitshares X and into the real stock market. BitAssets are not real stocks but if they peg to the same price of real stocks then it shouldn't be hard to turn them into IOUs for the real stock.

BitAAPL could simply be used to purchased Apple stock through Overstocks network as long as the network is designed with an open API to allow this to happen. We should seize this opportunity to make sure they open their network up so that Bitshares X can communicate and connect to it.

As long as our network can connect to their network then it doesn't matter anymore. Each network will fill a niche. There are trillions of dollars available to go around so we should all work together.

Quote from: Mysto on October 06, 2014, 04:37:34 pm

I don't really know how btsx works under the hood (the code). But the way I thought it worked was this...
Right now btsx is in the hands of I3
They can pretty much do whatever they want (within reason)
Once btsx is no longer in the hands of I3 things like dilution are practically impossible even with shareholder consent.
Are my assumptions wrong?

With shareholder consent dilution is possible at any stage I think.

Yeah BTSX shareholders give I3 free reign basically at this stage which is good.  But shareholders have enough voting power to control BTSX independently even now, it's just most people that own BTSX aren't voting yet because they don't need to. They know I3 & BM  will only act in their best interest and put important discussions and topics to the community like dilution etc, for discussion and feedback.