While useful as consensus mechanism for a DAC this thread has revealed that DPOS may be flawed for a crypto-currency use case. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0

DPOS would allow users to come to a consensus about changing the rules on which the crypto-currency itself was founded.

Previously a majority that wanted something different in the short term would have to change currencies or fork but with DPOS, if the group that wants to hold the fundamental rules and principles of the currency is in the minority then they are the ones forced to change or fork.

It is therefore likely A DPOS crypto-currency use case will always succumb to the fate & flaws of all currencies and democracies that have preceded it.

Only some sought of limited consensus model that somehow realistically removes the ability to change those initial rules and principals on which a crypto-currency was founded is able to be a trusted long term store of value and more importantly a benefit to society if history is a guide.

DPOS only allows for a digital company share while a limited consensus model allows for digital gold.

If so will users looking for a crypto-currency choose a digital gold or a digital company share?

Will users choose a BitAsset system that is backed by digital gold or digital company shares?

I mentioned it in another reply but getting BitUSD on the CMC main page, (or at least our highest CAP BitAsset) is very important imo if it is at all possible.

According to Alexa.com, BitShares-X.info gets it's most upstream visitors from CMC by far. > 30%.

(Twice the amount as BitShares.org brings for example and think of all the time, money and effort that has been spent on that.)

The asset page though is viewed MUCH less. So we put ourselves at a big advertising & marketing disadvantage if not on the main CMC page and other pegged assets like NuBits (ponzi) are.

Believe it or not the following actually comes from a place of love for the BitShares and what it is trying to achieve. I'm also sure BM can probably describe succinctly why my paranoia is wrong but if I really don't like an idea, I come out strong. (I should also mention I did the same thing when AGS was announced which actually turned out to be great.)

While there's no doubt whatever BM & team's stake is, it's far too small relative to all the work they put in. However...

-BitSharesX is CPOS in practice not DPOS.

-BDNS's developers combo stake will probably make it CPOS in practice. (Majority of active voting stake.)

- The Music DAC proposal last week was originally CPOS I'm not sure what the final allocation will be.

BDNS already includes a measure that sets aside an unnecessary amount of shares for development.
(Merger deals can be discussed separately.) But at least that method limits the amount you can get diluted by CPOS.

However, the inflation described here enhances CPOS further.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9452.0

While you may be told inflation will decentralise the DAC by diluting the initial group. Rest assured if anything like CPOS is in place, the CPOS stake will not get diluted, yours will.

With CPOS + inflation, rather than leaving the company they built or doing a violent fork, the CPOS 'developer-combo' stake  can dilute others down, often subtly if required, which will happen, especially if the DAC no longer needs to be decentralised. (This will still happen with some shares set aside initially but at least the potential dilution from 1 company is not unlimited.)

So are all the DACs really designed to be centralised and ultimately dilute the initial investors?

The Facebook dilution scene... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMUe26X3mo

BTSX is a virtual vault for storing value via BitAssets

The virtual vault is currently risky, people need to be compensated for that risk.

How? Interest on their BitAssets

(BTSX holders don't need to be compensated for the risk because they get the reward from BTSX doing well)

We have an attempt from Shentist here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8047.msg107361#msg107361
Gulu here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7865.msg104117#msg104117

I am very excited about 4.11 because

2) Shorts can sell at up to 10% below the peg *if* there are offers to buy above the peg.  The difference is captured as fees, gives priority to shorts willing to pay the highest fee.

That difference captured as fees gives you the pot that can be distributed to all BitAsset holders as interest and in so doing create the market. (I presume because of TITAN this is not easy to do.)

My question is does anyone know what the current plans are with regards to introducing interest into the system?

To BM, if you have the time - Do you currently feel that interest may not be necessary/not easy to implement and want to give the system a chance without it or do you guys recognise that interest is required and you are thinking how best to approach it?

Thanks.

Edit: Assuming 2 identical systems except system A didn't redistribute the captured fees from (2) above as interest to BitAsset holders and system B did.

Would someone looking to store their value in BitAssets choose system A or system B?

BitAsset holders would choose system B so there would be no demand for BitAssets in System A, assuming they are otherwise identical, ergo that interest should go to BitAsset holders if possible imo.

(I also don't feel it will effect the peg as banks & exchanges such as bter all offer interest and the level of interest attracts capital. The interest we can afford to pay seems to be defined by (2).)