There will be plenty of people willing to short BitLISK at even a 1/4 of what it's trading for on Yobit.

Can/t we create BitLISK and only enable forced settlement once LISK is properly trading?

Quote from: bytemaster on April 07, 2016, 12:37:10 pm

Only 0.47% of STEEM is liquid in individual accounts, this is going to make the pump on CMC legend... wait-for-it... dary!

I hope the price feeds to CMC will be running and STEEM will be exclusive to BitShares DEX 

That's an impressively small amount, possibly too small. CMC has been pretty lenient with vesting balances in the past, (XRP founder shares & BTS merger shares for example) but with such a high amount vesting, it's quite possible CMC/others will only count the liquid, currently tradeable 0.47% towards the valuation.

Is Tether.USD the same as or related to Tether (USDT) http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tether/ ?

This is why for the top 20 SmartCoin index you need to consider volume too imo.

Quote from: EstefanTT on March 23, 2016, 04:24:53 pm

That's why I first consider the MC, because it's the only thing you can't fake. The only way to manipulate the MC is by pouring your money in the coin ;p

A lot of cryptos claim to have X supply on the market but you can't be sure they really distributed them, so their market cap is inflated but this is often obvious by their much lower volume.

SBD is an entirely different beast than BitAssets.  There is no shorting, no margin calls, and users cannot create it.

3. Interest on SBD is paid by creating new SBD from thin air and might never result in creation of STEEM

There are other reasons why Steem could not be built on BitShares:

1. It would need to be a separate asset due to its inflation scheme
2. bitshares is unable or unwilling to fund the development of something so speculative
3. bitshares is better served being an exchange and integrating with STEEM via a side chain

....

Thanks, I know you mentioned it wasn't really possible on BTS previously and I appreciate the detailed explanation.

While SBD is vastly different, it is still potentially a BitUSD competitor. There are no/low TX fees on BTS so I think we would derive little benefit from being a sidechain but the USD that bootstraps first or becomes really popular will make the backing asset very valuable.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 05, 2016, 04:53:17 pm

Quote from: arhag on April 02, 2016, 09:41:02 am

Interesting...

Some additional (long) thoughts on the project:

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting...

Now the question is will bytemaster's strategy work, or will it cause the Bitcoin community to treat this DAC like a pariah and stubbornly refuse to use it while yelling out words like "instamine." I can't wait to find out.

Is this already mostly coded?

Everything I described in my post about STEEM was from my review of the existing code in GitHub. So, yes.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 05, 2016, 04:53:17 pm

If so can it be forked onto BTS or a separate DAC with an allocation strategy that greatly favours BTS holders?

The BTS SuperDAC was created with the intention of forking competitors where possible/valuable and this seems like such a scenario given it's based on BTS compatible code?

I was going to say yes, but apparently as bytemaster mentioned previously in the thread, STEEM is released under a non-free license. Regardless of licensing issues, let me procede with why it may not make sense to bring SBD with interest into BitShares, which I believe is what you are mostly concerned about.

The problem with the SBD asset is that it forces all STEEM holders to back it, which means a risk of significant STEEM inflation to cover the price stability of SBD. We would not want to force all BTS holders to back an SBD equivalent on BitShares. Furthermore, users cannot create as much SBD as they wish on STEEM (which I think is good because that limits the liability of STEEM holders). That works fine for its intended purpose as rewards for content creator and curators, but I would say for something like BitUSD, our existing mechanism of borrowing with collateral makes more sense.

Thanks for the reply.

Ignoring the licensing issue for the time being. Could we potentially create something resembling a STEEM2 asset on BTS that is sharedropped 80% onto BTS shareholders (&/or pay royalties to BTS) with a corresponding SBD? It would have all the properties of STEEM & would be backing SBD2 on BTS but it would have been mostly sharedropped onto BTS shareholders.

My only thinking is shareholders will be unhappy about a competing USD created by CNX even though BM has justified his position and I also think STEEM's launch and initial distribution will be unpopular so combined with BTS's size, network effect, community & existing infrastructure  we may be able to outcompete it & existing BTS sharheholders will gain that value.

Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?

Not yet to my knowledge.

I think it may be advisable to share-drop on BTS though because it seems to be a method for bootstrapping a competiting BitUSD which is what shareholders feared about VOTE DAC and why many agreed to the BTS merger.

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10148.0.html

I'm not sure yet, but it also seems like STEEM may be using dilution to fund an interest rate bonus...

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting.

Though unlikely, it's possibly similar to a concept I've been pushing to benefit BitUSD, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html which BM hasn't ackowledged in the forum and only a few months ago believed wouldn't work.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 19, 2016, 09:04:16 pm

That's $365 000 a year of dilution.  That could be  on $7 500 000 worth of BitUSD.
Even with a lot of yield harvesting that would rapidly make BTS the undisputed Crypto USD market leader.

Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.

I don't know what the SBD liquidity subsidies are but they could also be the best combo from ideas formulated from the BitUSD liquidity thread, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.195.html

So SBD is potentially a competing BitUSD using concepts that could have helped bootstrap BitUSD or a USD on BTS.

So I don't think STEEM will necessarily be popular with BTS shareholders & given that they've intentionally violated a lot of the crypto communities cultural expectations they're unlikely to be popular with them either.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.  Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.

We''ll have to wait to learn more but I think STEEM/SBD could be a BitUSD competitor and we should potentially be looking at options, forking/other to compete with it.

Quote from: gamey on April 02, 2016, 11:32:54 am

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.

anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.

I think Graphene is already pretty solid and right now the focus should be, getting a tight peg on key SmartCoins (subsidized liquidity) and make them attractive to hold (BitUSD Yield)

BitCrab what do you think the general sentiment among the Chinese community is on subsidizing liquidity and yield?

a) BitAsset Liquidity https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html

b) BitAsset Yield   https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html


STEEM is potentially a BitUSD competitor that may have both subsidized liquidity and yield/interest.

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting. There is a DEX on the network with just a single market STEEM/SBD (plus there are subsidies to liquidity providers which is great addition)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.0.html

I believe diluting for interest/yield in particular is self-funding and will create demand for BitUSD (BTS) and raise the price of BTS from the outset. If we don't do it, competitors will bootstrap their USD product first. Are some at least in favour of diluting for liquidity &/or yield?