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.
Because then there is less incentive to short. The disparity between the prices of bitassets and the price of the real assets they're derived from will be greater. The lower the dividend/cost of shorting, the more stable and accurate the prices on the exchange will be.+ 1
Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk
I heard its been uploaded somewhere but i carnt find it.
Can anyone help?
Was that discussion recorded?Oh, Bytemaster, if only thousands of people could hear your voice saying that...
In the Mastercoin / Ethereum debate last Friday I introduced BitShares X as allowing people to earn 5% or more on Ether and Mastercoin
Floating rate is not as good for adoption. It will most likely be much less than 5%. There isn't that big of a cost to lending money in a controlled and automated environment as bitshares x. 5% interests on savings is much more competitive than traditional banking systems. I imagine that at some point a floating rate will be used, but I think that 5% is a good incentive for people to store money in the bitshares bank as opposed to traditional banks given the uncertainty of associated with this emerging industry of DACsWon't this cause everyone to want to hold BitAssets and force the price of the assets through the roof?
There was a discussion about the number "5" previously. The only good solution that needs to be worked out is to have a floating rate, which means having a prediction market for the interest itself.Floating would be ideal if we could work out an effective system to do this.
I don't know why you think you can just say blatant lies and treat them as truth Liberty. "Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved" Compliance is still not defined by all state money transmitter laws and the companies know they have to be regulated and they go to every full measure they can to make sure they are safe and compliant. Coinbase started with an AML policy and careful compliance to Fincen/MSB they did not start out allowing wire transfers without any details and blatant money laundering. I don't know how you got this idea that these companies just started out with these completely idealistic ideals that they were above all regulation, they instead got every compliance they were advised to and have kept away from ones that aren't "legally required" yet. The businesses are regulated and they are compliant with current laws. Thank you for your argument.Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept.
Thank you for your arguments, but the companies you mention did not begin with compliance but came to it as rules were refined to include them. Bitcoin evolved from niche technology before compliance was achieved. Those companies were able to avoid compliance long enough to acquire capital to become compliant with existing barriers to entry. These aberrations happened because they formed faster than the regulations could adapt. Use of Bitcoin is a rejection of the capital controls by state, and the state will do whatever is in their power to obstruct it. Non-compliant exchanges continue to be important. Bitcoin exists in spite of the regulations, not because of the regulations.
Compliance is a noble goal, but it can't be achieved without the absence or sacrifice of worthy values.This is not a project about creating a disruptive technology, it's already there in the DAC's from memorycoins, protoshares, and eventually bitshares. Your argument regarding "You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot" is entirely off-centered. Bitcoin has only grown because of the LEGAL and COMPLIANT exchanges and businesses (coinbase/bitpay) that has brought this technology to the masses. Bitcoin only existed as a niche technology until these businesses actually have brought them to the less technology adept. In order for us to bring DAC's to the masses we need businesses/services that will spread the message and bring them to the average person.
Do not forget that we are talking about the establishment of disruptive technologies. It is interesting to see people feel it is possible to negotiate the legal and financial obstacles that are intended to block competitors. Compliance only lasts until an anointed agency changes the rules on you. You do not achieve escape velocity by following the rules but by rendering the rules moot. None of us would have heard of Bitcoin if success depended on the ability to negotiate regulatory hurdles. Bitcoin runs full speed around the hurdles because it values the ideals of liberty more than the blessings that come from kissing the ring of those that write the rules.
You are supposed to believe it is possible to disrupt established markets by playing by the rules, because otherwise you could not be stopped. The process uses your resources against you and ultimately helps your accepted master refine and enforce the rules by which you will comply. The vicious cycle ends when rules need to be made so oppressive (to restrain competition) that people finally reject the premise that they need to be ruled over. Positive change requires someone willing to avoid the obstacles to demonstrate what is possible. Freedom is when people act with knowledge that rule makers need you more than you need them and that the benefit of the rules is an illusion with fleeting value.
Sell your conformance if you think it will benefit, but mind the cost and be mindful of the bigger picture. It seems possible now that this dream started with an absence of worthy values and therefore nothing would be lost.
