CSHARES - Crosschain mailing list for DApp developers
Details - cybershares.net. Created by cyber•Fund. Read the paper. Join cyber•Talks community.

Thanks for your work. I've subscribed to your blog in August. Good that you come back.

Daily volumes close to CNY! And $700k valuation. Wow!
To be honest i'd wouldn't buy in before sharedrop... impossible to predict price behaviour.

Quote from: Vizzini on January 08, 2015, 06:39:57 pm

Lord Almighty, I thought I understood the basics from scanning the whitepaper. Now after reading these explanations, I realize I don't understand a freaking thing about what this is or how it works.

If they're going to enable cross-trading somehow, then this is more than a hedge fund or wallet.

That is true. If cyber•Shares will live as UIA inside leading cryptosystems and will solve all upcoming issues remaining coherent this side effect could make cyber•Shares alternative medium of moving value from one chain to another.
There are more side effects of successful proof-of-origin implementation.
cyber•Shares is basic mailing PDApp with social consensus feature.
But imagine that you want to develop simple Instagram DApp. You decide to choose BitShares (fast and efficient) blockchain for storing records and StorJ for storing pictures. But you want coherent tokens of your PDApp to implement efficient business model of your PDApp. How would you'll implement this? I see two very different approaches:
1. Issue DApp tokens on BitShares and buy volumes you need to cover Storj crypto fuel.
2. Issue some PDApp tokens on BitShares and some on Storj (they don't declare this feature yet? To be autonomous and efficient they should do it).
So you can cover the cost of crypto fuel "inside" BitShares and Storj more natively without a lot of crosschain movement.

But i don't want to think about all this rocket science now. Its better to concentrate on easy to use buttons to make possible measurable sharedrops. Any crypto startup do sharedrop now. I do believe that this have tremendous potential and market opportunities.

Me - There is fashion to be chief scientist now. In fact i'am not. I think more in business terms so i am responsible for architecting all this stuff.
Kostya Lomashuk - responsible for pushing everything forward.
Vitalik Lvov - responsible for investment operation of cyber•Fund and providing expertise to cyber•Shares community.
Dima Sadovnichiy - responsible for development. Contracts development in future.
Max Uvarov - leading digital marketing expert in Russia. Didn't commit full-time to project yet, but his advices are valuable for us.
Marina Guryeva and Vova Savin are early investors who believe in us from the very begin. Initially Vova was responsible for mining (hardware), but now we don't believe in mining as it exist today, so he think about engaging in some future hardware engineering. 
Early Believers  - FFF (friends, family, fools). Small group. So we already pass this stage.
Category of founders is a way to to honour people who make this all happens. This category exist and doesn't mean nor work, nor responsibility.

Ok so who is going to develop the wallet and all these cool features you are talking about?

Vitalik, Kostya, Dima and me. Of course we will do everything to expand the team.

What are these other groups that are listed?
Distributed trusts - 10%

Described in paper. You can think of them as teams with focused expertise. In fact these are long going plans. Now we've acquired the most sweetest domains in .fund TLD and i assume it is not difficult to set up good investment funnels and gather small, but efficient teams in one year time frame. To understand better the system look on my working shit sheet.

What are these other groups that are listed?
Founders 10%-I get who this group is but can you reveal everyone in the projects name that is apart of this group?

Yes. That is not the secret. You can check names and history here
Some explanations.
Me - There is fashion to be chief scientist now. In fact i'am not. I think more in business terms so i am responsible for architecting all this stuff.
Kostya Lomashuk - responsible for pushing everything forward.
Vitalik Lvov - responsible for investment operation of cyber•Fund and providing expertise to cyber•Shares community.
Dima Sadovnichiy - responsible for development. Contracts development in future.
Max Uvarov - leading digital marketing expert in Russia. Didn't commit full-time to project yet, but his advices are valuable for us.
Marina Guryeva and Vova Savin are early investors who believe in us from the very begin. Initially Vova was responsible for mining (hardware), but now we don't believe in mining as it exist today, so he think about engaging in some future hardware engineering. 
Early Believers  - FFF (friends, family, fools). Small group. So we already pass this stage.
Category of founders is a way to to honour people who make this all happens. This category exist and doesn't mean nor work, nor responsibility.

What are these other groups that are listed?
cyber•Fund 10% - This is the actual money that is used to buy assets across the 4 exchanges? Will the holding amounts be public? Who picks how much of a asset you hold and where?

cyber•Fund is in fact operational team which is committed to follow up. cyber•Fund holds 10% as a way to financing operational activities. All holdings of cyber•Fund are possessions of cyber•Fund holders. Transaction model is impossible for cyber•Shares so this 10% will work as revenue motivation. This mean that cyber•Fund is motivated to hold this bag and provide profitability of this bag to perform it's operational activities. cyber•Fund wont have any plans to sell it in any visible future. Think of cyber•Fund for cyber•Shares as delegates for BitShares. But this way is more flexible as long as any other team could compete and | or complement cyber•Shares ecosystem. To be honest i want to make this 10% flexible and adjustable by cyber•Shares holders, but do not see easy and ready to use crosschain solution at this moment.

What are these other groups that are listed?
Inspirer's 8%- Who is included in this group (names) and how do they fit in?

Initially i supposed to distribute this to top-20 guys like Adam Back, Vitalik Buterin, Dan Larimer etc. But afterwards i realised that this is not easy to do. For now i've send 0.5% to Flavien Charlon - invented Open Asset protocol, develop colored core, implemented web and mobile free-of-charge applications. Also i use this bag for introduction bounty on cyber•Talks - 10 cyber•Shares. Others are subject for discussion. Proof of honour?

How does a buyer of the UIA profit from this?

He define himself as right audience to sharedrop. So he benefit from revenue in form of colored dividends. The suppose that only in 2015 there will be 1000 DApps and, who knows, - 1 mln. in 7 year time frame. Leading appstores already there. That is a huge opportunity for sharedrop market. So in case of cyber•Shares success that will be make sense revenue flow on the daily basis.
We assume that DApps wouldn't be able to directly compete with DACs and should tend to find different from transaction fee model.
In fact cyber•Shares is evolution of Dan's idea of protoshares. We want to focus on this feature, be chain agnostic, implement solution for communities collaboration, develop infrastructure and bring expertise for DApps developers and attract more investments to industry.

Quote from: 21xhipster on January 08, 2015, 05:17:23 am

BitShares still don't understand the power of internal economy created through UIA.

Welcome!

Could you expand on this?  I'm presently trying to learn more about the potential of UIAs.

Let me give simple metaphor to explain.
Imagine that any cryptocurrency system | DAC is a state, and UIA's are companies or SPVs which exist because there is underlying transaction system.
I suppose that best user case of UIA is products which extensively use BitShares blockchain and has own domain.
Domain itself is able to generate traffic and thus create additional value. Any services provided by domain could be charged in UIA tokens (from user point of view it could be BTC or BTS or BitUSD) creating essential demand. Depending on nature of provided services tokens could go to revenue centre controlled by entity's management or directly to customer making him shareholder. Proposed model:
- add value to underlying DAC as any UIA create demand on transactions.
- add value to UIA as any domain itself able to generate essential search and social traffic.
- make internal DAC's economy more visible: you can understand valuation and economics of any infrastructure and service product.
- add possibilities for UIA (domain) entities to fund itself, deal, etc.

Instead of arbitrarily deciding a percentage to reward yourself for the integration/development/marketing work you are planning on doing and wondering if you picked the right number to not piss too many people off, you let the stakeholders themselves decide who to pay and how much for the value that they add. You campaign as delegates to work on the new coin and the stakeholders vote for you if they think you can do a good job. If it turns out some of you are doing a poor job, the stakeholders vote you out.

If you allocate 10% to a group and it turns out they do a bad job, the stakeholders don't have a way of getting that stake back from you. They either have to accept being "robbed" of their value or they just give up and dump the coin and try with again with another coin by another group.

Of course, this doesn't solve all the issues. You still need to arbitrarily decide which projects to sharedrop on and how to allocate the percentages between them. There will always be disagreement with that as well. I don't know of a nice solution to that problem however. And once again, nothing guarantees that the projects you sharedrop on are going to give up on their original token and use your new one. They just as likely might dump the tokens you gift to them and use it to buy more of the ones that you sharedropped on.

Thanks for recommendation. Campaigns are good. Really good. Then you have cohesive and engaged community who know then, where and how to push buttons. But that wont work on the "almost idea" idea stage. Founders just will loose time to gather votes begging for resources. I love decentralized approach. But should be concentrated point of energy to make fire. Reach fast and efficient consensus inside 5-10 guys is much more simple than for 40k. There is good and proved tool from real life - revolver. Simple game. Everybody welcome to "devs". Devs define percentage and reach consensus concerning it across community. Devs control and decide how bag will be splited inside bag. There could be several "devs" so they could compete. But that should be defined (not flexible - that is not transactional model) once to make possible full-time longterm commitment. Otherwise - no boiling point, problems with funding of brainchild, no motivation - that is also harmful and risky and in fact black side of the moon.