Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on March 22, 2016, 04:39:32 am

Quote from: yvv on March 21, 2016, 10:46:44 pm

Quote from: liondani on March 21, 2016, 10:32:22 pm

I think if you want to stick to the "best" 20 crypto's you should use the first 20 with the biggest volume NOT the 20 with the  biggest marketcap.... because we will see many shitcoins on the list very often....

I support this point. Market cap is a bad measure of performance. Issue trillions of shit coins and get #1 market cap. Look at ripple for example. Trade volume is the only good way to evaluate crypto token performance.

trade volume is also easily faked

It depends what exchanges you reference I guess. You can't fake volume very easily/for very long when you're paying 0.2% per trade can you?

(Coinmarketcap for example excludes the BTC exchanges with no fees from their calculations http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets )

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

Quote from: liondani on March 23, 2016, 02:18:35 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 23, 2016, 01:20:38 pm

You can't fake volume very easily/for very long when you're paying 0.2% per trade can you?

except you are the exchange owner... so the fees come back to you...

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.

(As an extreme example, have an ICO for 100 million coins, raise 100 BTC but 99.9 BTC actually came anonymously from you. Now there's only 100 000 coins on the market you don't own. Building their price up to $1 a coin would be fairly cheap and now your DAC/Coin would be valued at $100 million, but it would be clear your market cap is inflated because of the low volume.)

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 15, 2016, 05:19:28 pm

1.  When you guarantee liquidity at the expense of shorts and at 1-1, this adds a significant burden to shorts that they will price in via an additional premium. By lowering the forced settlement number as well as the amount that can be forced settled you reduce this burden and therefore not only bring the price close to the peg (which is favourable) but also reduce the risk premium shorts need to charge & thus create a tighter peg overall.

Your wording implies that forced settlement is in some form damaging to shorters. That is wrong. Settlement happens at the fair price and does not change the NAV of either involved party. The shorter can take the remaining collateral and the proceeds from selling the originally shorted smartcoins and immediate extend his short position, should he want to stay short. The only "damage" here is the required fee, which is negligible (less than 1 US-cent I believe).

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 15, 2016, 05:19:28 pm

In addition to lowering forced settlement, I am personally also in favour of other measures that reduce the burden on shorts so that their risk premium is reduced thus creating a tighter peg overall.

The "burden" on shorts is an inherent factor in *every* short position. The reward for that position is the leverage effect, which works for the shorter in a BTS bull market. Actually, in BitShares the shorts are relatively well protected. In real-world shorts you can literally lose everything, not just your collateral.

Increasing the settlement offset to 1% would reduce the risk premium by 1%, right? How far above the feed are smartcoins trading currently? Would 1% really make a significant difference wrt the tightness of the peg?

Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pm

Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.

Voting is overrated.  I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day.

'The DAO' seems to be doing very well in its fund-raising so far, so it seems the market has faith in something similar to the BTS voting model. I guess the real test will be to see how they do in practice.

http://coinjournal.net/dao-decentralized-fund-management-crowdsale/

Quote

The DAO Raises Over US$13 Million During First Three Days of Crowdsale

Similarly, in The DAO, there is no director and no board. Voting power is granted to holders of The DOA tokens who can vote to approve or decline proposals submitted. Voting rights are proportional to the amount of tokens held. The proposals submitted to The DAO by contractors, define how much or how little control over its operational responsibilities The DAO “outsources” to the contractors.

The DAO said it is looking for projects that provide a return on investment or benefit to the organization and its members, and which benefit the decentralized ecosystem as a whole.

The organization earns revenue generated by the products and services it helps fund. Profits are then distributed to participants based on transparent rules that are decided by the participants beforehand.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 10, 2016, 02:21:07 pm

Quote from: Ben Mason on May 10, 2016, 06:05:01 am

Steemit rewards contribution....of course bitsharestalk should move.

Unfortunately the time value of good contributors forum posts is far in excess of what it would ever make sense to financially reward. So it's not much of a USP.

You could have already observed this via Brownies for participation. While it initially attracts some interest it rapidly plateaus and doesn't add value or network effect to the underlying unit/platform/forum or incentivize good contributors. This is because there are plethora of factors that attract users to engage/identify/contribute content.

Imo due to launch/distribution and other factors such as the 'social + media' being really a core/fundamental weakness of the founders it's a poor, to put it mildly, foundation for this. What it does have going for it, is that talented developers like BM and others are probably going to be based there in the near term so your ideas have a greater chance of manifesting/contributing to developments which could positively affect your investment. (As I think it's a poor investment, I don't see the value in that personally, but others might.) 

Quote from: Stan on May 10, 2016, 01:38:06 pm

So it's a really beautiful, self-reinforcing Darwinian selection process. No need to formally make such a decision.  It will sort itself out.

 

With great respect, I really don't know how you can be so definitive about the prospects of value continuing to be available to contributors on the Steemit network. Surely the relationship between contribution and reward (let's not forget, rewards do not only come in the form of Steem) will be the result of complex growth/innovation dynamics. Nobody is guaranteeing anything. But we can work hard and hope can't we? No-one has cracked mass adoption.....social media is a great start. The naysayers evaluation is as valid as the next person's but the future is unknown to everyone. I find solace in the technology, the effort and those many that share a solidarity of effort and optimism.

Poker on the blockchain won't work with Graphene's three second transaction times. Maybe for simple casino games it would be fine, but there are literally several dozen moments of decision making for every 10 person poker hand and if every decision has to be broadcast then it is going to take an excessive amount of time to play poker for players that are accustomed to fast play. I am going to guess that the developed poker game offered by Peerplays is also not going to compare in looks, feel and game play as say a well developed platform like Pokerstars - and this will be a big turn off similar to the many other online poker sites that have launched and failed over the years. Furthermore, poker sites spend considerable resources for customer service, Peerplays won't have this will it?

Quote from: dannotestein on May 09, 2016, 05:41:31 pm

Quote from: Thom on May 09, 2016, 04:24:16 pm

Wow, those stats are indeed rather dismal and the trend is clear as day.

The stats look far worse than the truth in this case, because May stats are for a partial month. Re-evaluating with that correction, data doesn't look nearly as bad.

Multiple all May stats by 4 to estimate the whole month...still not good.

However, our randomized player matching algorithm is one of the solutions we are working on to greatly eliminate the possibility of collusion in multiplayer buy-in tables for games like Texas hold'em. We will be discussing this more publicly in the months ahead.