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.


Messages - CoinHoarder

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 44
151
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 29, 2016, 05:12:39 am »
I am with China on this one... I support low fees. Bitshares is too young to push users away because of low fees.

Openledger, by far the biggest referrer, has barely made chump change off the referral program. We should not base our decisions off of a failure of a feature.

If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.

I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.

Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are:

Quote from: ccedk on January 28, 2016, 08:35:57 am
I will personally pull out of anything related with BitShares if this is voted out, as I will have no belief or incentive in the continuous pull for getting BTS and OpenLedger known worldwide.

He has no incentive... because he already pocketed $237,000 for a few months of work. Must be nice...

Quote
According to OBITS issuer and market maker, CCEDK, a Danish crytocurrency exchange, the OBITS crowd sale has so far managed to generate total public sales amounting to around 645 Bitcoin (BTC) – equivalent to around $237,000 (c.€217,000/£166,000) as of today. This has been spent purely on development costs and enhanced user experience.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2016/01/16/cryptocurrency-obits-ending-crowd-sale-with-buyback-dividend-option-adding-fiat-gateway/#27a08e2b4207

152
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:43:24 pm »
Quote from: Akado on January 28, 2016, 10:20:38 am
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 28, 2016, 02:45:45 am
@JonnyBitcoin
A. Dilution will lower the value of BTS - The dilution for this feature would not lower the value of the BTS token, as it does not effect the demand. The supply on "paper" increases, but that supply never makes its way into the market. So, no downward pressure is ever applied onto the market from the BTS printed.

It doesn't need to. What matters is people's perception of what's happening. The simple idea of diluting will put many people off because they will immediately associate it with the merger and consequent price drop.

You could dilute, if people aren't aware of it your plan could work.
On the other hand even if you don't dilute, if people somehow think you're doing it, it will be a "merger" all over again.

People's perception matters a lot imo.

I honestly didn't expect you knuckleheads to take my solution seriously. This community is such a joke. You guys argue about trivial things as if they will have some great effect, and ignore the real solutions to problems. My solution solves the problem at hand... better than any other solution that anyone has brought up. You guys will end up wasting more money diluting (real, negative dilution... not the kind I've proposed here) shareholders to put band aids on the problem without ever fixing it. More band aids will be needed to replace the band aids that were ineffective, and so on and so forth.

I don't have time right now to explain fully, but most of Jonny's solutions are unacceptable because they either limit the functionality of Smartcoins/Bitshares, require unreasonable cooperation in between 3rd parties, are unreasonable due to legalities/logistics, or put a band aid on the issue without solving it.

153
General Discussion / Re: OBITS HODLERs, your money is in danger.
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:26:22 pm »
Quote from: ccedk on January 28, 2016, 08:35:57 am
I will personally pull out of anything related with BitShares if this is voted out, as I will have no belief or incentive in the continuous pull for getting BTS and OpenLedger known worldwide.

Corporate fascism has arrived folks. Ironically someone I was debating about Bitshares warned me about it a week ago.

He offers everyone the smallest (overpriced) piece of the pie possible by offering OBITS for sale, and thus now he has a small army of keyboard warriors defending his interests at very little cost. The OBITS shareholders don't seem to realize just how small a piece of the pie they actually own judging by them defending Open Ledger's interests religiously. Well played Ronnie, well played. If I have to choose in between China and Open Ledger, I choose China all day long.

154
General Discussion / Re: Connecting the dots
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:51:18 am »
Quote from: btswildpig on January 28, 2016, 02:28:56 am
Quote from: mike623317 on January 27, 2016, 06:04:45 pm

I wonder why we always get overlooked in the Bitcoin media, despite being in the top 10 and top 4 coins for the longest time. Why is that? POS or something else?

I feel like we're the red headed step child. Answer that and we might get some traction

the founders of this project called bitcoin a failing business and will eventually dead . And even some of us follow the lead and does that .
what do you expect from those bitcoin people .

Maybe now is a prime opportunity for some PR considering we've been pushing this view for quite some time. With all of the Mike Hearne drama, maybe we can get some major media outlet to show us a little love?

155
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:45:45 am »
@JonnyBitcoin

You and I have a different definition of radical.... those ideas seem rather tame to me.   :P

I have been cooking this idea in my brain that is as radical as radical gets. I think it would work without much blowback....

A. Bitshares needs to autonomously print BTS specifically to fund this feature
B. Bitshares shorts every SmartCoin, and puts them up for sale 10% over the price feed (the percentage and collateral amount can be set by the committee)
C. The amount of liquidity provided by this feature is set bet the committee (for example... $25,000 per SmartCoin 10% above the peg)
D. If/when the liquidity pool for any certain SmartCoin is running low, Bitshares autonomously prints more BTS so that the amount of liquidity set by the committee is maintained.
E. Instant liquidity is observed across all SmartCoin markets
F. Unintended benefit: Bitshares' position on Coinmarketcap is bolstered, so as to make sure we stay in the spotlight for at least another year or so. I think the coming year (or two) is very important for the future success of cryptocurrencies... we do not want to fall behind and out of the spotlight.

But... but... Coinhoarder....
A. Dilution will lower the value of BTS - The dilution for this feature would not lower the value of the BTS token, as it does not effect the demand. The supply on "paper" increases, but that supply never makes its way into the market. So, no downward pressure is ever applied onto the market from the BTS printed.
B. Smartcoins will no longer work on free market dynamics - This is why I suggest a wide (but snug) 10% peg. A 10% peg leaves a lot of wiggle room for profiteers or market makers to come along and naturally tighten the peg more so. The amount can be adjusted as needed, so it can start at a 5% peg until liquidity/adoption reaches a certain point, then it can be relaxed to 6%, then 7%, etc... as the market matures the percentage can increase and the "training wheels" taken off.
C. This seems very risky - Not if it is fully planned, peer reviewed, and everything is done autonomously by the blockchain.
D. What if the funds get margin called - Considering we are shorting with printed BTS, we can short with a very high percentage of collateral. Thus, it is unlikely a margin call ever occurs. If one does occur after setting an astronomical amount of collateral, then the BTS value is in the gutter of the gutter already, and Bitshares is already in dire straights (or likely dead.)

156
General Discussion / Re: Connecting the dots
« on: January 27, 2016, 04:16:45 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 27, 2016, 03:44:32 pm
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on January 27, 2016, 08:37:24 am
of course, Smartcoins are the one thing that makes BitShares unique, and therefore, yes, you can logically call us a "1-hit wonder"

but our "hit" is pretty humongous considering that we have absolutely monopolized the "smart-COMEX/FOREX market"

Chaz Darwin was a 1-hit wonder too.  He never did top his "Origion of the Species" hit, but that hit was all it took to make him filthy rich and famous.


Here we agree, SmartCoins is all it takes to make BM filthy rich and famous.

However we haven't monopolized the market. In fact our USD product only has 2.5% of existing crypto market share.

Uphold: $2.06 Million
Tether: $1.4 Million
Nubits: $0.74 Million
BituSD: $0.1  Million

& as Coinhoarder says competition will significantly increase through 2016 & I agree that understanding why we have a significant premium and tightening it is key. (I disagree with him though that Black Swan fear is a key factor, given the relative success of NuBits despite very little backing and a much higher risk of failure.)

I agree with this. Regarding black swans, I just rattled off some of the most common criticisms of smartcoins. The biggest issue with Bitshares is the premium that has to paid for smartcoins. We can't expect anyone to purchase smartcoins if they have to pay such a premium. Nubits, Tether, etc are killing BitUSD purely because of a tighter peg and higher liquidity.

157
General Discussion / Re: Connecting the dots
« on: January 27, 2016, 03:34:58 pm »
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on January 27, 2016, 08:37:24 am
but our "hit" is pretty humongous considering that we have absolutely monopolized the "smart-COMEX/FOREX market"
Maybe you're just playing into the idiot Erlich Bachman character (funny show), but I am not sure how you can call the DEX monopolized considering the pitiful volume and liquidity. Most people are scared of using Smartcoins because of the possibility of a black swan event, they  are not willing to pay the huge premium neccesary to purchase a Smartcoin, or they are not willing to take the risk of shorting one into existence.

The DEX is not finished. Competition is coming... instantdex, b&c exchange, elcoin, etc.

Now is not the time to become complacent or satisfied. Now is not the time to be overly worried about dilution.

What do we want? LIQUIDITY! When do we want it? NOW!

158
General Discussion / Re: Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 27, 2016, 02:41:21 am »
First, let me say I don't blame BM for selling BTS to cover expenses such as office rent, employee salary, etc.... the man has to eat. Furthermore, it is necessary that developers be able to diversify or cash out, otherwise there is no incentive for developers to work for the blockchain.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 26, 2016, 11:01:51 pm
I confess to selling from ANGEL today to cover some expenses.   Unfortunately, I sold just prior to the big pump :( 

On the brighter side super33 appears to be out of BTS to sell.

I have still not been convinced that this feature would not reduce downward pressure on the BTS token. Especially if a premium was charged. I personally would make 100% of my BTS token purchases from this fund if I knew all of the BTC would go towards development, and I would pay a 10%-15% premium to do so.

159
General Discussion / Re: Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 27, 2016, 02:37:39 am »
Quote from: puppies on January 24, 2016, 03:11:08 am
If we were going to utilize the reserve fund I think we could find better ways to spend those funds than locking up btc.  Something like shorting bitassets into existence and closing the peg would do more for us imo.

I agree. This doesn't have anything to do with the reserve fund.

160
General Discussion / Re: Connecting the dots
« on: January 27, 2016, 02:17:46 am »
@ Stealth

It is being worked on

@ Liquidity

Shareholders are too cheap (or uninitiated) to fix the problem and/or disillusioned that percentage based fees and market maker bots and/or adoption will fix the problem (the same mantra that has been championed for 2 years with no results). Immediate solutions exist, but again shareholders seem too cheap or uninitiated to fix it. I am not investing another penny in this project unless some type of action is taken to provide liquidity on the Smartcoin market. The obvious solutions are obvious:

Quote
- Changing the fee structure to resemble centralized exchanges (based on a percentage of the trade, with a maximum fee)
- Lowering fees to the bare minimum for however long it takes to gain more users and liquidity
- Sell the SmartCoin fee pool (fees accumulated from each SmartCoins' transactions/trades) back into the market X% over the price feed.
- Develop market making bots that users can run or invest in through a user issued asset (a complicated endeavor)
- Make an autonomous market making bot that users can buy shares of by depositing to its bankroll
- Implement "maker/taker" fees (lowering fees for market makers)
- Dilute BTS shareholders, and short assets into existence, then have the chain autonomously sell them X% above the feed price.

@ Adoption
 
I have tried for over 2 years to get the crypto community behind Bitshares... possibly more than anyone else. I am THE biggest bitshares cheerleader on Bitcointalk, even though I am one of the smallest shareholders (pathetic on you guys). I am constantly trolled and dismissed... Bitshares has made too many wrong decisions and burned too many bridges to garner more support from the cryptocurrency community. I have pretty much given up. The adoption will need to come from elsewhere.

@ GUI

The GUI is better than 99% of cryptocurrencys' GUIs. The GUI is not the problem at all and is in fact an advantage.

@ Fees

They are too high. So what about the affiliate program... the fees, even being as high as they are (way too high), are not enough incentive for the affiliate program to work. It was a solid idea, but it will not provide proper enough incentive to really be effective unless BTS is at a much higher market cap. So, we should not make decisions based on the affiliate program since it was a failure.

161
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:38:32 pm »
Why would anyone pay to send a transfer when they can send it for free (or much cheaper) with any other cryptocurrency?

Yet, you guys feel free to do what you like. I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.  You guys live in a bubble over here on bitsharestalk and have no idea how bad of a rep Bitshares has in the crypto community for many different reasons. Network effect makes successful crypto currencies, and Bitshares lacks a meaningful one. The referral program is a joke as even with the current fee structure there is little economic incentive to really make it work.

162
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:04:50 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 24, 2016, 04:40:20 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 24, 2016, 03:49:37 pm
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.

Let's get moving on this.  +5%

I think it is unrealistic to expect the percentage-based fees to end up at the levels suggested by the poll results (min: 1 BTS max: 20 BTS rate: 0.1%).
This would mean a radical change of rules for the referral businesses and I hope the major shareholders won't allow it.

I believe we must not mix the introduction of percentage-based fees with a drastic change of business rules.
If you want to campaign for that, do that independently, after percentage-based fees are in place.
If we mix those two matters at this stage, we risk sabotaging the whole BSIP#10 initiative.

The DEX has had little to no liquidity for 2 years now. Anything that helps with liquidity should be implemented. This mantra of all we need is more adoption to fix the liquidity is a farse. If many measures aren't made to fix the liquidity issue then we will be saying that for the rest of our lives, and left holding a bag of worthless BTS.

Poor referral businesses... Bitshares will move on without them. I don't see them bringing in a ton of users anyways. The BTS price sure doesn't reflect that they are bringing in many users.

They will also still make a killing on normal transfer fees which are also ludicrously high.

163
General Discussion / Re: BTS Mutual Aid Society (aka 'insurance')
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:10:24 pm »


The link to the subforum is broken and I can't seem to find it in the navigation menu. I would like to help with the design of MAS.

164
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 24, 2016, 03:49:37 pm »
54.8% is a large margin of agreement for a Bitshares proposal... one of the largest percentages I've seen.

Let's get moving on this.  +5%

165
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: FORBES - MUSE Blockchain Technology To Revolutionize Music Industry
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:28:48 am »
I am still on the fence about MUSE.. I haven't purchased any tokens yet. I don't rarely invest in vaporware (I didn't invest in BitsharesX pre-release either), so I am waiting to see if they can deliver what they have designed. The design seems like it could be a profitable/popular blockchain service, but I am not sure how big it can get. I think adoption in the music industry and/or consumers (ironically.. similar to the DEX) will be a tough hurdle to jump.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 44

Page created in 0.2 seconds with 23 queries.