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.
I put several BTC into it.
just speculation or do you see more in it?
i am intersted if they can really attract developers, because they are using javascript and node js....
So... no one is going to consider BM'S very valid concern that essentially this proposal creates a "walled garden" in between Bitshares and the rest of the crypto currency community?
When compared to the high cost BTS shareholders are paying in other areas that they can't recoup, create direct selling pressure & isn't likely to increase product demand, I think this is very lucrative to at least attempt on a trial basis
Do you think DASH Masternodes or PPC minting rewards are anti-free market? Most POS alts these days offer various rewards which can be mitigated by holders if they engage in the network positive behaviour the reward is attempting to incentivize.
I think this is a terrible idea that does nothing but steal value from BTS bulls (people who hold BTS), and give it to BTS bears (people who hold bitUSD instead of BTS).
This will not achieve the goals you want of encouraging bitasset adoption, rather it will reduce the incentive to hold BTS, reduce the value of BTS, take money away from bulls and give it to bears.
You can still maintain your current BTS position by yield harvesting. Being long BitUSD and short BitUSD at the same time.
So it doesn't take any value from BTS holders provided they yield harvest. However this would remove BTS from the centralized exchanges and make most shareholders owners of BitAssets while still maintaining their current overall BTS positons.
(Provided total BitAssets in circulation < 1/2 of BTS market capitalization, then directing funds to yield can be mitigated by yield harvesting as far as I understand.)
Well, if you agree your OP wasn't clear about the source of dilution why not go back and edit it?
Also, BM & Stan explained why they thought "yield harvesting" doesn't work, but in all of this discussion I don't see a strong case made for why their take is wrong. If anyone could explain that clearly and concisely or point to such an explanation that would be great.
If it was just a topic I would but I'm personally not a fan of changing anything in a poll, once people have started voting on principle.
We've yet to hear BM & Stan's take on this but personally I think they were right that yield harvesting was a negative in 1.0 because of the way yield was derived (from shorts hoping to incentivize longs) I'm hoping they will see the merits of this approach in 2.0In 1.0, I believe BM was right that yield harvesting was bad, because shorts would offer yield to entice longs which went into a large pool but then BTS shareholders would yield harvest, thereby reducing the average yield and discouraging genuine longs.
In this example where we send dilution to the yield, yield harvesting is a great thing because it means shareholders aren't diluted as long as they yield harvest. However it acts as a behaviour incentive to get BTS holders to remove their BTS from the centralized exchanges (which is a big positive) and support Smartcoins.
Really wish we could go with Tony's proposal and block the sending of BTS, forcing everyone to trade on the DEX.
localhost sent 5,000,000 BTS to poloniexwallet
4 hours ago
This Monero ride is pretty wild, I must say. But going up over time it seems.
as it should, IMO. i'd personally love to see Monero widely adopted as the dominant version of digital cash for payments, BTC as reserve currency, Ethereum for a range of automated business functions, and BTS for p2p asset exchange. that's my vision of an ideal crypto-utopia...
the shares are insanely undervalued given the sophistication and utility of the platform. There are some businesses that see that utility - hence my purchase of OpenPOS. The platform doesn't need to be all things to all people to succeed just enough things to enough businesses.
Wow thank you Riverhead!!
Let's also not forget Metaexchange, Blocktrades.us, Bunkershares, Sharebits, OpenLedger, Transwire, and I'm sure a bunch I don't know yet. These people are not going to walk away because a whale flounced.
I wish there were even more businesses that this, but at least its a start. The way I see it, businesses are the primary customers of BTS. We will never get mass adoption by normal users, or at least not for a long time, in some future where cryptos in general achieve adoption, but we can achieve adoption by businesses, who will get their users using BTS without even knowing it.
Its sad that the Banx guys never did anything with BTS 2.0, and apparently turned out to be the scam that some were accusing them of being. If they were legit, then BTS 2.0 could have been the way for them to prove their legitimacy. Their delay in upgrading to it probably means they are a scam and were using BTS as a way to keep things going for a few more months.
No scam here Ander - we are currently working on the move to BTS 2.0 as we speak
