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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 44
46
General Discussion / A plan to revive the value of the BTS token
« on: March 16, 2017, 06:40:07 am »
The original dream of BTS consisted of making a profitable DAC, thus increasing the value of the BTS token.

There is a stupid easy way to do so, and it has been under our nose the whole time. This will be a controversial proposal, but I have no doubt it will send Bitshares to the moon, and pull it out of the downward spiral it is on.

The proposal is simple. Delegates should get paid nothing... zilch, nada. It should be a volunteer-based, non-profit venture. With no inflation, each token holders' equity will increase proportionally with every token that is burned.

I posit that there are enough stakeholders with enough skin in the game to run delegate nodes for free. Stakeholders of which that are incentivezed enough due to their holdings of BTS tokens to not try anything stupid, and of course they could be voted out quickly if they did.

Only one small tweak would need to be made to the codebase (other than reducing delegate pay to zero, which I think can be done by comittee.) Eventually, all coins would get burned in fees, leaving no BTS tokens in existence. A stock split every so often would be needed to issue tokens proportionally to all stakeholders so this never happens.

A profitable DAC = An appreciating BTS token = Happy investors = More investors entering the ecosystem = Trickle down effect to liquidity in BTS' DEX

Ez game

47
General Discussion / Re: Steemit's Plan
« on: July 07, 2016, 07:24:46 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on July 07, 2016, 06:35:40 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on July 07, 2016, 06:30:45 pm
FWIW- Dan first proposed most of the things he is doing in Steem here to the Bitshares community. You guys cut off his funding for said proposals- stating they were either unnecessary or declaring that inflation for development/improvements = bad. It is kind of the Bitshares' community's fault he has moved on from Bitshares to Steem. An employee must get paid for his work, or else he will look elsewhere for an employer that will pay him for working. Failure to see that to make a few dollars you have to spend a few dollars is entirely on the Bitshares' community. Short term greed stymied Bitshares and will be its eventual downfall.

No one cut off his funding.  Dan never even created a worker proposal.  Total bullshit saying that BTS won't pay for any development as there are 2 workers being paid already.

The previous post and this one is just my perception (opinion), but I will elaborate a little more.

Of course he could of used his (and his group of insiders) voting power to vote in worker proposals, but towards the end of his participation in Bitshares he was getting a lot of flak for the amount of votes he wielded.

He then tried a more democratic approach by trying to seek the consensus of forum members, but he failed with every attempt. He failed to get funding and/or community backing for numerous proposals towards the end of his Bitshares participation:

Mutual Aid Societies - rejected due to it having nothing to do with the DEX
Stealth - rejected because it was not considered important enough and because of dilution
Subsidizing Liquidity - rejected because of dilution and some thought it should be done off-chain
Rate-Limited Free Transactions - held up for multiple reasons - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22307.msg290751.html#msg290751
Vesting Rewards - rejected
Decentralized Bond Market - rejected because people thought other things were more important

This is just a small list of what I was able to compile in about 5 minutes of digging.

48
General Discussion / Re: Steemit's Plan
« on: July 07, 2016, 06:30:45 pm »
FWIW- Dan first proposed most of the things he is doing in Steem here to the Bitshares community. You guys cut off his funding for said proposals- stating they were either unnecessary or declaring that inflation for development/improvements = bad. It is kind of the Bitshares' community's fault he has moved on from Bitshares to Steem. An employee must get paid for his work, or else he will look elsewhere for an employer that will pay him for working. Failure to see that to make a few dollars you have to spend a few dollars is entirely on the Bitshares' community. Short term greed stymied Bitshares and will be its eventual downfall.

49
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 11:09:36 pm »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 10:48:46 pm
You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?

B&C is still in development... vaporware at this point.

Supernet's assets cannot be traded in the main Supernet client yet, but the multi-wallet part is done. Supernet is IMO has a very slick GUI. It takes about 15 seconds to install, and you can store/send 7 different cryptocurrencies in one wallet. It is easy and fast to try it... just copy/paste and throw away the private seed (unless of course you want to try it out). I have tried out the multi-coin send and receive feature, and it works as advertised. https://github.com/Tosch110/SuperNET-Lite-3/zipball/master

50
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 10:55:18 pm »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 10:04:47 pm
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pm
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.

Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the  SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?

Great.. we need liquidity... how?

maker/taker rewards?

What does that look like?

What would be enough to attract traders?

How much liquidity is enough liquidity?

I propose that all features I suggested in the OP will help with liquidity, but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.

As to what does it look like... there is a lot of information in their respective threads. Ideally, it incentivizes orders put on the book which are weighted for their duration, closeness to the price feed, and size.

As to "what would be enough"... we can make that parameter dynamic, just like Bitshares' other dynamic parameters which are changeable by committee consensus. We then start low, and gradually raise the amount until equilibrium is reached.

Another way of subsidizing liquidity is the way Nubits does it. So really, there are 3 different ways to subsidize liquidity (maker/taker; NASDAQ-based model, or Nubits-based model). Someone with a lot of knowledge on Nubits came here and claimed to be able to buy us thousands of dollars in liquidity for $9 or less a day.

Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pm
"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."

I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.

So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider.  The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers.  The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account.  They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.

The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity, while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.

51
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 10:34:46 pm »
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pm
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.

Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have.
Exactly.

Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pm
Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the  SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?

They both use multisignature addresses.

Supernet's setup is pretty basic and less secure IMO. The way I understand it, they only use 3 signers spread across 3 servers. They are simply assets on the Nxt exchange utilizing multisignature addresses. Their GUI wallet is super spiffy/lightweight/gorgeous though, and the exchange is functional and works, so they are still a competitor. They need to work on their exchange's GUI, because for now it just runs on Nxt's exchange GUI which is quite ugly.

B&C's design implements multisig addresses as well, except that it uses a reputation-based system in which an arbitrary number of participants compete for blockchain rewards- based on their effectiveness and honesty. I think it is similar to dash's Masternodes... they put up a deposit of B&C tokens to become a signer, lose the deposit if they are not honest, and are incentivized to remain honest. That is just from memory the way I understand it anyways. I am having trouble finding the whitepaper... there has been a lot of drama going on in the Nubits/B&C Exchange camp, but even among the drama there seems to be a realization that B&C has a pretty good design for a DEX using real assets.

There is a 40 page thread on Bitcointalk in the Bitcoin Development section that goes over B&C Exchange in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.0 and also information on Nubit's forums.

I think we should let the free market decide whether they want to trade Smartcoins, Exchange IOUs, or the real assets. We should not play as puppet master, and doing away with exchange IOUs is one of the huge benefits of DEXs. Don't let the special interests of OBITS/METAX be the death of Bitshares! Someone will come and do it anyways, and it is better to have a piece of the pie. In this industry, you need to innovate or eventually die. There is no inbetween.

52
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 07:26:05 pm »
Quote from: fav on June 27, 2016, 07:23:55 pm
PoW is shit, thought we got over this debate months ago :)

on a more serious note, what BTS needs is liquidity and traders - everything else is secondary

Regardless of your opinion on PoW or dPoS, my proposal gives you liquidity and gives you traders. It gives you everything you want.

All you need to do is take a step back and look at the big picture, and forget about dPoS vs PoW for a second.

53
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 07:24:31 pm »
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 06:33:50 pm
Quote from: xeroc on June 27, 2016, 06:29:42 pm
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..

Also the PoW implementation in Steem doesn't even gain any of the pros of PoW that CoinHoarder is concerned about. It is entirely a marketing gimmick so that irrational PoW zealots [1] don't automatically dismiss it because it isn't PoW.

[1] CoinHoarder, I am not calling you that, since you seem to have weighed the pros and cons and analyzed it critically (you just seem to have different values than me on what is important for you to come up with a different conclusion). But the vast majority of cryptocurrency PoW enthusiasts don't have the skills to actually analyze consensus mechanism critically and they just follow the herd blindly.

I am most certainly not a PoW zealot. I don't have a preference, but I am willing to admit the pros and cons of each. I see both as being useful.

For instance, a marriage of dPoS and PoW would still result in one of the biggest benefits of dPoS in the first place... energy savings. Which results in a more "green" cryptocurrency. Consider that, as proposed, dPoS will have a 40% chance to find each block and PoW will have a 60% chance. Since PoW only has a 60% chance to find the next block, it reduces the possible block subsidies won by mining by 40%. In other words, profitability of mining is decreased by 40% as compared to purely PoW cryptocurrencies. Consequently, since the overall pie is smaller, less electricity will be wasted to try and obtain it. Theoretically, this reduces the amount of electricity needed to secure the blockchain (compared to purely PoW coins) by 40%. In summary, it provides the energy savings of dPoS while maintaining the higher security against prolonged attacks of PoW.

I understand that you guys don't want any more inflation, but this is unfortunately another issue that Bitshares faces.  I just remembered that Bitshare's faces another problem... getting "new money" to participate, and getting the now larger cryptocurrency community financially vested in Bitshares. There have been a ton of newcomers since PTS/AGS/etc happened. There is a lot of money behind this "new money". It has propelled Ethereum to a billion+ evaluation, Bitcoin to highs it hasn't seen in two years, and other alt coins from near death to top 10 market capitalizations. For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons. I think that the OP takes care of most them but we also need to get newcomers financially vested in the success of Bitshares. What better way to do this than by starting Bitshares 3.0 via an ICO AND adding the ability for future "new money" to obtain coins via PoW mining. IMO, getting more people in the cryptocurrency community vested in Bitshares' success is another key issue that Bitshares faces.

54
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pm »
I am not saying that I necessarily agree with all of the grievances of Bitshares, just admitting that they exist.

I think that correcting the main grievances people percieve Bitshares as having may sway Bitshares' target market's overall perception of Bitshares. Greatly increasing usage, support, community, and liquidity.

I am certain that implementing all things in the OP would be more effective than only implementing one or a few, but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.

Quote from: xeroc on June 27, 2016, 06:29:42 pm
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
I disagree. I would argue that Steem's community and Bitshares' traders are of equal importance. The only way Bitshares will be more valuable one day is if it obtains traders. My suggestions in the OP are ways Bitshares can do that.

Abandoning the "if we build it, they will come" mentality is key to Bitshares' future success. Admitting Bitshares is incomplete as it exists today is paramount, just as it is to realize that getting rid of IOUs (like open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc) is one of the biggest reasons people should use DEXs in the first place.

You may not agree with the arguments that the antagonists make against Bitshares. All I am suggesting you do is accept that these arguments exist,  that they are negatively effecting Bitshares, and do everything in the Bitshares' community's power to attempt to assimilate them. The most effective way to do so is by writing code, and eliminating perceived weaknesses.

55
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 06:11:59 pm »
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 05:44:15 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 05:28:37 pm
Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.

I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.

My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.

All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.

The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack  can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.

56
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 05:28:37 pm »
Again, the first step is admitting you have a problem. That is the hardest hurdle. I can see most of you cannot admit/realize that these are all huge problems Bitshares faces. I see a lot of groupthink, which is unfortunate for the future of Bitshares. Don't shoot me- I am the messenger. Unlike most of you, I spend 98% of my time in the greater cryptocurrency community- not sequestered in Bitsharesland and Steemitland. I have conversed and debated with many people that do not use Bitshares over the past 2 years, mainly on the Bitcointalk forums (where I have 3.3k+ posts.) These issues always come up as being the reason why people don't like or use Bitshares. Say what you will about how your strategy is working and liquidity will improve (I would refer you to the scoreboard... the value of the BTS token). Say what you will about dPoS (the antagonists will continue to write Bitshares off because of it). Say what you will about OpenLedger solving all of Bitshares problems (but remember the whole point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties and IOUs). Say what you will about Smartcoins (some people will always prefer to hold/trade the tokens of the real assets).

I am having "deja vu". I gave a similar talk to the Litecoin cryptocurrency community in 2014. At the time, they were #2 on coinmarketcap and at the top of the alt coin food chain. Their problem was that Litecoin lacked any innovation compared to most other newer cryptocurrencies. It was, and still is to this day, being propped up by its network effect. I begged and pleaded that they break rank with Bitcoin (stop copying it code line for code line) and branch out on its own innovative path. Then, Ethereum came along and surpassed Litecoin by a wide margin and it is now valued at over a billion dollars. I knew innovation would eventually win out, as relying on network effects can only get you so far. Two years later, my prediction is starting to take place and Litecoin has reverted to the #4 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap. Is the same thing going to happen with Bitshares? If it does, then maybe people will start to listen to me when I give "the talk" to a 3rd cryptocurrency community... whoever that may be in the future. lol  :P

Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?
A: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.

Q: Who uses cryptocurrency exchanges?
A: The cryptocurrency community.

In order for a cryptocurrency exchange to be successful, it must have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. At this time, Bitshares does not have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares. It always comes up when anyone mentions Bitshares on Bitcointalk. PoS is considered as being less secure than PoW, and for good reasons (of which I don't care to diving into.) Implementing a PoW hybrid would be a way to appease these types of people in the cryptocurrency community that have written Bitshares off based solely on the fact it is secured by dPoS.

You guys also don't seem to get the need for drastic liquidity measures. It is a chicken and egg problem if you continue down the same road, and therefore sufficient liquidity/depth will never be reached. Where Bitshares is headed is a dead end, and someone will come along and eat Bitshares' lunch. That is guaranteed.

Another reason people don't like the DEX are the inherent weaknesses with Smartcoins, and maybe you guys don't get that either? Reliance on trusted third parties is not the solution (open ledger, meta exchange, etc), as the point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties. Supernet and B&C Exchange will trade the REAL assets... not smartcoins and not open ledger IOUs. Maybe you all fail to see how this is a huge advantage when it comes to competition against DEXs? open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc, should be a means to an end, not the solution as you guys are hoping it will be. IOUs will always be IOUs, and suffer the inherent shortcomings that all IOUs do.

Then, of course, there is the huge dislike of Larimer & Co. throughout the greater cryptocurrency community.

57
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 06:27:05 am »
I thought of another main problem, which I will add to the OP. It is regarding Smartcoins themselves. Some people perefer to trade real assets. There are projects that will trade the real assets (supernet and b&c exchange).

Bitshares should give DEX participants a choice whether they want to trade Smartcoins, IOUs (open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc), or the actual tokens themselves.

B&C and Supernet have concocted ways to eliminate the need for smartcoins and IOUs, and this is another way Bitshares' lunch may be eaten. However, smartcoins are still useful to provide leveraged trading. The best solution should incorporate both the real assets AND smartcoins. Then let the market decide which is more valuable.

I am not proposing you all agree that these are problems. I am asking that you admit that these are plausible problems, correct them, then let the market decide who is correct.

58
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 06:21:53 am »
Quote from: xiangxn on June 27, 2016, 05:35:27 am
Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO
I agree, any IPO should be done on the BTS 2.0 network. The initial distribution of Bitshares 3.0 could be derived from that distribution of BTS 3.0 tokens issued on Bit shares 2.0

Worst case scenario, it provides short term buy pressure to the BTS token. Best case scenario... BTS 3.0 takes off like Ethereum, and shareholders are content with the equity reduction based on evaluation increase of the BTS 3.0 token.

If you antagonists are correct, Bitshares 2.0 will beat out Bitshares 3.0 in the market. Otherwise, Bit shares 3.0 will beat out Bit shares 2.0, and you may not get such a pleasant share drop. Someone will eventually come along and do what I am proposing.

59
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 05:11:35 am »
Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:50:31 am
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 01:37:37 am
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).

Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:20:13 am
Coinhoder,

I will give my input.

Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.

This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.

No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.

I agree with 2) without it it will go nowhere....does not mater if we have more n more stuff n new things.....work on what can improve liquidity n adoption is a must...I will take a look at those topics, thanks for input.

It does matter though. Some variation of #2 (whether it be 2a, 2,b, or 2d, or some combination of those) will matter, along with #1 and #3. #1 will matter hugely to the cryptocurrency community that has written off Bitshares simply because it is dPoS. #3 matters because we need money to self-fund #1 and #2, or alternatively to raise money to solve #s 1, 2, and 3.

Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:50:31 am
about 3 Im not convinced that more money is the problem here, would be great for sure, but we should make something sustainable n useful without focusing too much about creating new things......in my opinion we should focus pretty much about people use what we have, because hide behind development on somenthing is pretty much what factom maid n others do.....but do they will delivery something useful n needed for crypto world?
You are right, more money is not the problem. Numbers 1 and 2 of the OP are mainly the problem. However, solving problems #1 and #2 requires raising money. While we are at it, why not solve problem 3c3?

I am not trying to persuade you that these are the only problems Bitshares faces, just that these are several problems that Bitshares faces.

60
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 05:01:02 am »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 04:09:51 am
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
There are many people in the cryptocurrency community that immediately write off any PoS cryptocurrency, and dPoS shares much of the same vulnerabilities as most PoS cryptocurrencies. Bitshares is immediately cutting the easiest obtainable target market of a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange (the cryptocurrency community) by relying on dPoS for consensus. This can be solved by enacting PoW at a higher weight than dPoS.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 04:09:51 am
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.

While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.

I am sure someone will do this. It is such a good idea. I am tempted to do it myself, but in my country (the USA) it is risky to conduct cryptocurrency IPOs. I am suggesting the Bitshares community to be the first to move on this. Otherwise, the people that decide to do it may not give Bitshares token holders such a big share drop as I am proposing. Technically, only 10% is required by the social consensus. Let the market decide whether Bitshares 2.0 or Bitshares 3.0 is more valuable.


Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 04:09:51 am
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Everyone for the past 2 years has been certain that whatever project they were working on would bolster liquidity. There have been many proposals passed and developments made... most of which the supporters were certain of higher liquidity being the outcome. How has that worked out? The Bitshares DEX trades "pennies" while centralized exchanges trade "hundos".

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 04:09:51 am
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
Nxt token holders disagree with you at the moment. For the record, Ardor was announced on June 19th, and was at 0.00001130 BTC. Since the announcement of Ardor, it has increased to 0.00002688 BTC. That is a 237% increase. Going with 3c4 (cancelling 3c1 through 3c3), while still implementing some variation of #s 1 and 2, could do wonders for BTS shareholders.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 44

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 23 queries.