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

Perhaps something like a decentralized alternative to threaded discussion forums, e.g. Reddit self posts (though limited to STEEMIT_MAX_COMMENT_DEPTH == 6 nested comments, which I guess is a reasonable number),
except with the distinguishing feature of economic rewards for good comments ("What do you mean internet karma points don't have to be worthless?" ).
Though perhaps that could backfire as well: redditors take karma too seriously as it is even though it currently provide no economic value whatsoever. But it would be fun to see how economic incentives modify social behavior online.

From Ned Scott's Linked in

Quote

Steemit is a social media platform where everyone gets paid for creating and curating content.

Synereo is a similar concept  http://www.synereo.com/

Synereo is a fully decentralized and distributed social platform owned by the people who use it.
Your attention is scarce, precious and powerful.It’s time for it to work for you.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 29, 2016, 10:26:23 pm

Quote from: TravelsAsia on March 29, 2016, 09:22:36 pm

Question 4:

So the funds raised in the pre-sale and the ICO will be used to launch the Kickstarter. I'm with you on this so far.   Since all ~9 million tokens are already issued, what exactly are you selling during the kickstarter and how does that benefit existing token holders?

Scenario:

6 million sold during presale
3 million (slightly less) sold during ICO
What is offered during the kickstarter and how does that affect the presale holders.

These 9 million tokens represent just a tiny fraction of the total tokens that may be issued. So expect many millions of new tokens to be issued for the kickstarter.

Quote

SoLCerts is an example of using a token to represent a portion of the 1 trillion SSS Sollar bond fund. 10,000,000 SSS Sollar bonds will be represented through this (SoLCerts) token.

http://newmoney.sollars.com/new-money-funding-series-part-4-solcerts/


Solcerts are not like Apple/Microsoft/Ethereum/BTS where you are buying limited tokens that will increase in value as the company increases in value.

Solcerts are not like Bitcoin where new limited currency is created but provided adoption/demand is greater than new supply the tokens will increase in value with no ceiling. 

Solcerts are not like BitUSD which is unlimited based on market demand but is pegged to the dollar and backed by collateral.

Quote from: SolomonSollarsNSense on March 23, 2016, 02:46:04 pm

At the end of the day a SOLCERT is a future Sollar. Sollars and Sense will be a stable unlimited supply coin

Your Solcert is a future Sollar. Sollars are a stable unlimited supply coin. (Pegged to & backed by nothing.)

You forgot part 3: http://newmoney.sollars.com/new-money-funding-series-part-3-sollars-coming-dac-smart-money-tree/

The Sollar bond takes the role of appreciating and speculative asset while it has not been redeemed (Bitshares,NuShares, Bitcoin). And Sollars and Sense plays the stable money unit of the system that can be used everyday (emunie, nubits, BitUSD, Tether).

As far as I can tell the sollar bond can't take the role of the appreciating and speculative asset like BTS/BTC/ETH because it only entitles you to a future Sollar & like Sollars, Sollar bonds can be issued in unlimited & unknown amounts, by you personally it seems initially, as there is no DAC yet.

.At some point on the road there includes Sollars and Sense switching from being a UIA, that is manually pegged to the Dollar, to being its own independent DAC where its stability to the Dollar is automated with no human involvement.

As you intend to manually peg the Sollar to the dollar initially, there is some upside if you purchase 1 Solcert for less than 1 dollar. But unfortunately you won't have raised enough funds to provide any meaningful & redeemable collateral so it's unclear how or why Sollars would get pegged.

There could be something I'm really missing here & I'm not familiar with Emunie's stability mechanism, but personally I think most investors here and on kickstarter would prefer to invest in a company. You could possibly re-configure this so that these 10 million tokens represent shares in the New Money project itself. (Even if you say you will also be issuing X million shares at the Kickstarter, Y million for yourself, Z million set aside for A/B/C.) Then people can put a value on your idea, vision and the New Money Project. In terms of bootstrapping Sollars,  you could issue them at 1-1 with the dollar whenever  a mainstream customer wants a Sollar & peg them using something similar to Nubits/NuShares system. Both could exist on BTS. 

I think you're going to have a lot of confused people thinking they were buying shares in a 10 million token DAC and not understanding they were buying fairly unlimited bonds that will hopefully be redeemable for a token pegged to the dollar in future. (Even though you mention long term they won't necessarily be unequivocally tied to the dollar.)

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 28, 2016, 06:13:06 pm

I'm margin selling all the way up to 0.030 myself.

You made the mistake to not participate on ethereum crowd-sale... don't make another one! We need you here...healthy!

Yeah I might lose on this one My thinking is that they have a high valuation, a lot for sale under 0.032 and high inflation atm.

If you look at LTC when it had that kind of inflation, it could never maintain a high level, as that 30% inflation would always drag the price down when the current reason for speculative demand dried up.

If I lose on this trade, I'll lose on others because I've put buy orders very low on other things I like expecting a sharp Ethereum correction to make them crash too, so I might end up having to buy into them higher. Oh well...

Quote from: onceuponatime on March 28, 2016, 08:47:55 pm

There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:

"WARNING.  Some centralized exchanges  may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."

 

Yes, a red, bold warning about BTS when first timers visit Bitshares.org or download a BitShares Wallet. Marketing genius...

Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)

Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947

I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 28, 2016, 11:27:04 am

Quote from: Samupaha on March 28, 2016, 07:17:25 am

Quote from: 浅蓝~~~ on March 28, 2016, 06:14:00 am

bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too

What the hell this is supposed to mean?

He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'

So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.

Their argument with the consent issue is that they've always been told if you don't like it, don't just complain that it's not fair/bad for BitShares, get the shareholder votes to support your POV otherwise silence means consent (Also reference in Dec 2015, not just 2014) So now they have the votes to do what they believe is in the best interest of BTS and we shouldn't change the rules/ban them from the forum but rather argue for the other side and get the necessary votes for our POV. 

My impression is that they believe dilution for development is draining the price in the short term. (I agree to an extent that $50 000 spent on development can drop BTS by much more than $50k because of the selling pressure it creates and the value of that development is only realised in the future.) So they think BTS is pretty good where it is atm and deserves a higher valuation and that now we should attract more supporters attracted by a stable/rising share price. At a higher valuation a $50k dev job is relatively much more affordable.

Personally I don't think their strategy will have the desired effect, because vesting merger shares are probably having a much bigger impact than development dilution is at this stage. We've also seen with Fox's effort to add us to Azure, which ironically was low/no paid gave us a $6 million volume day and took us from $10-20 million in less than a week and still 50% higher. So there are clearly some development type efforts that can add massive value to BTS and worth the cost.

Quote from: Samupaha on March 27, 2016, 12:22:46 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 27, 2016, 10:32:12 am

Personally I think the best way to offer a POS minting reward that removes BTS from current supply is by offering yield on SmartCoins.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg286581.html#msg286581

It will also create demand for SmartCoins and because BitUSD is less volatile than crypto, the yield required to attract BitUSD demand is much lower.

Yeah, this would be probably good idea, but it might take some time until we reach a consensus about exact model and implement it. In the mean time I think we could still do something simpler that even the antidilution gang can understand and accept.

Quote from: abit on March 27, 2016, 10:59:43 am

Isn't free market the best idea?

What do you mean?

Bitshares is a DAC, so it's like a company. Shareholders want to see the value of their investment to go up. We should consider all possibilities how this can be achieved, whether it is offering products and services to customers, incentivizing smartcoin liquidity or locking BTS away from markets.

Dash is a case that proves that it is possible to raise the price of core token by locking it away from liquid markets. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't do the same?

I mean focus more on products and less on the (price of) shares.

Just some random thoughts here.

It's risky to have shares be a part of products (like what we did).

Once we have side chains, it's best to use SIDE.BTC etc as default collateral of all smart coins, or create new smart coins, let market select the best ones. After then, dumping and pumping of shares (BTS) won't impact liquidity of products (smart coins), and perhaps no price feeding is needed at that time. A new era, BitShares 3.0.

If you use SIDE.BTC as default collateral then the more popular SmartCoins becomes the more demand there is for BTC... So you're mostly growing BTC demand with that strategy not necessarily BTS unless you earn fees from their transactions. (Even in a ninety percent BTS price decline, BitAssets still retained their value so they're designed pretty well in terms of using BTS as collateral.)

The Yield Promotion is also fairly self funding, example...

If you buy 100 Z Shares we'll give you 5 free Z Shares per year as part of a temporary promotion.

20 people say yes please. This creates buying demand for 2000 Z Shares. But we will create 100 Z shares worth of sell pressure over the following year to fund their bonus.

Provided just one new person takes part in the following year, his 100 Z Shares of demand will offset the sell pressure of the bonus for those 20 people.

So in that example, until such time as new demand for that promotion is growing at less than 5% a year, the promotion is self funding.
At that point you curtail/close the promotion.

So assuming all else being equal, customers will choose the BitUSD with yield vs. one with no yield, you will become market leader and attract lots of self funding demand for BTS for many years to come with such a promotion. By then you will have bootstrapped SmartCoins and banks will probably be charging negative interest. So a private, no interest BitUSD will still be very attractive.

Studies show 80% of people hadn't moved their money for over 3 years since their teaser rate bonus ended anyway.
https://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/market-studies/cash-savings-market-study-final-findings.pdf
 

It's more profitable for dash owners to lock it up and get rewarded rather than trade on exchanges: they get an interest for the collateral and dash price goes up because there is less to sell.

What would be the best way for Bitshares to implement something like this?

This is similar to part of what BM suggested, having up to 15% dilution for investors who lock up funds paid for by speculators.
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/01/04/The-Benefits-of-Proof-of-Work/

Personally I think the best way to offer a POS minting reward that removes BTS from current supply is by offering yield on SmartCoins.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg286581.html#msg286581

It will also create demand for SmartCoins and because BitUSD is less volatile than crypto, the yield required to attract BitUSD demand is much lower.