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.
Any new updates? Perhaps snapshot or development estimates?
cob and I talked, he should have a revised allocation soontonyk will be pleased to see this
You still nees to market it for the crypto people thoughAnd yes Xeroc, we are starting with the crypto people. But they already understand most of this already. Not saying we won't have the infographic ready before the pre-sale, just saying it will be most valuable once we market to the mainstream consumers.
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:
Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com
I would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value.
So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service.
You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.
3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains.
4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.
I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.
There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).Get your brains problem solving guys!
We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.
Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.
If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.
If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.
So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.
It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.
My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
For the Pre-sale, we need to focus on crypto people since only they can contribute to a BTC address.We wouldn't do this for the Pre-Sale, but once we go mainstream, a nice infographic OLD VS NEW will be just perfect.Why not? the more people join the prescale, the better the distribution and the more money for the challenge!?
Love the site.
One thing it definitely needs is an "old VS new" infographic, something like this. Or if you have seen the DNS video. Emphasis on how the old system with record lables or iTunes or even spotify is old, and this is new.
How to put what you said to your level of arguments... Let's give it a try:
Shark Tank example: How many times do you think the sharks have taken a deal - '5 Million shares in a company, that represent unknown % of the company' ?
[Hint the number looks like 'O']
I do not know ... I hope in the music business, such reasoning has a better chance of to be taken seriously...
I'm just saying that as it is, the communications for this DAC are kind of shady and open for interpretation (interpreting is exactly what I'm doing right now), and compared to the other DACs that are currently online (or going to be), there's a lot of the "equity" that will be flowing in the direction of the founders/centralized corporation. Either they hoard those notes or they spend it, I don't care, but I'm not comfortable with the fact that approximately 30% of the total equity is in very few hands, pretty much like all the other premined altcoins (and I also include Bitcoin in that statement).
Notes ARE the DAC units.
I think though it's kind of weird investors will put money in "notes" instead of investing in equity of the DAC.
Investors will probably make a nice profit out of it, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. But it's a leap of faith, as they don't have any idea how many notes their investment entitle them to (as a percentage of the total investor's allowance).Just like AGS donations.
One thing for sure, is that no matter how much the music DAC is worth (even just a few millions in market cap), a few stake holders (founders) will make a fortune. I guess that's the whole point of this scheme?
I hope cob and crew gives the community some time to critique the plan before they make it final.. If a genius like bytemaster believes in full transparency and constantly getting people to attack his thoughts and plans, .. how arrogant do other people have to be if they believe they can get it right from the get-go? In all probability it is motivated as much by fear as arrogance.
We should observe not so much what their initial plan is, but how they respond and handle valid criticism. Wasnn't this a lesson from Shark Tank as well? But let us wait until we get something official!
I promised to share my thoughts on the market when I have one. Well today I do.I don't give any financial advise so can't comment on this.
The topic is:
'BitShares Music'Short Version:
Sell, sell, sell... whenever you get your hands on any bishashares Music shares (called Notes) sell. At whatever price the poor buyer is offering; do not give him a chance to think twice!
Let’s not talk about PTS/AGS holders – getting in 30 % of a worthless product is not much better than getting just 10%, I know getting 10% is insulting nevertheless.That is why on the 8th day the lawd invented forking. PeerTracks does not have a monopoly on the BitShares toolkit.
The IPO is designed to follow all well-known path of ‘crypto space’ stupidity –Ethereum style, or ‘known number unknown quantity’ style IPO. In short you pay $5 for X number of shares, but you are totally unaware how many shares will be sold. With every passing day the new buyer get less number of shares per $5 but at least know how many other crazies have bought before them. The total number of crazies still remains unknown, as there may be many more coming after them.If by stupidity you mean most successful crypto IPO yet. Then yes!
If this is not enough, the wise DAC creators/founders not just keep the proceeds of the ipo, they also reward themselves with free shares (about 30% of the total DAC’s shares, never the less!)Of course we are going to keep the proceeds. What do you think we would do? Give it to charity? We have an entire industry to revolutionize. We need all the funds we can get.
-Well the IPO was the fun part, there the creators of this DAC just rob you in bright daylight and that is in a way honorable of them.Yes, COB is taking around 2% of Notes. If it pleases you, I can just take all my bitcoin, send it to the Pre-Sale address so that it looks fair.
While they thought hard for their 30-35% free notes, in the business model we see that those Notes are not worth much. They entitle you to transactions fees… and that is pretty much it (well other than being a speculator and shorting musicUSDs at their own eXchange)
The other way to make money in this system are the following:This is wrong. I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear. We'll get to the secret sauce soon. Before we start the Pre-Sale of course.
– You lend money to a promising musician, he promises to give you something back (or not) if he is a success. Way to enforce such promises are something that the ‘founders’ will have to think of… but that is for later.
-The 3rd way the system makes money is buy selling music- on $1 dollar sales here are the proposed ratios:This is quote mining, cherry picking and a strawman.
95% for the musician;
4% for the ‘founders’? (as they have expenses for bandwidth, etc.)
1% transaction fees…
keep in mind these are fictitious %s and #s for the sake of simplicity
If a song sells for 1 BitUSD (FROM the PeerTracks website), a couple of things happen.
