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.
Thanks for putting trust into my work for BitShares and have my workers approved! Much appreciated!
Yip, it's a worker that distributes BTS for BitUSD owners which BTS owners can mitigate via yield harvesting.
I appreciate your POV, however personally I refer to any expansion of the current supply as dilution. (While you can argue the current supply includes the reserve pool, it's the act of bringing that supply to market which dilutes shareholders today in practical terms & often much more than the headline figure due to fairly thin speculative demand supporting current price levels.)
I agree though the question is whether it will increase revenue/profit/users/BTS demand enough to justify the cost and hopefully I've made a strong enough case in this thread why that will be the case. (Like many POS minting type rewards the majority of the cost is fairly neutral/circular and goes back to existing shareholders so is unlikely to create large sell pressure, while at the same time increasing new demand for BitUSD which creates net new demand for BTS as well as removing BTS from centralized exchanges, making BitUSD the market leader by CAP and holders and possibly making BitAsset liquidity operations cheaper, which should all be valuation positive for BTS.)
Well .. I agree ..
and IMHO this all breaks down to our failure in selling and marketing our shit.
If every shareholder put as much time into marketing and talking about BTS as they do in voting and talking about "dilution", we could have way more presence everywhere.
But the fact is that NO ONE cares about us as NO ONE knows about us ..
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying if I create bitusd and keep it I will get a 1% yeild on it?i'd also like to know this answer, though it looks like the proposal is something like a 4% yield for borrowing bitUSD short?
What exactly do we mean by dilution anyway? I thought the blockchain specks set BTS supply up front and that can't be changed? I'm uncomfortable with thinking that anyone can vote on changing the supply. Why not recycle fees from the USD-BTS market into some sort of yield instead of diluting?
BTS shareholders can currently vote for dilution up to 5BTS/sec under the current specs https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/
I'm personally against most forms of dilution however this one wouldn't effect me or you if you 'yield harvest', go long BitUSD with half your stake and short BitUSD with the other half. The yield you received on your BitUSD half would be equal too or overcompensate you for the amount BTS was being diluted. However the benefits of incentivizing all of us to remove our BTS from the centralized exchanges and become holders of BitUSD and use the DEX are very large as described in the OP.
I think tony referred to the funds that are still vesting due to the
merger ..
Those funds are not liquid right now and not in the reserves either ..
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.
Not exactly. Remember, the goal is not to disable transfers. The goal is simply to get the DEX to be the dominant market for trading BTS. And that's exactly what is going to occur over time. With the proper incentives, a growing number of people will begin to trade BTS on the DEX. As that happens, and along with other measures taken, liquidity will grow, the peg will tighten, even more people will trade on the DEX, the peg will tighten further, and so on through the virtuous cycle until the dominant market for BTS is on the DEX.
actually this statement is wrong on many levels!
There are 23,000,000 new BTS entering into circulation each month.
23 Mil BTS needed to be absorbed by new money entering the system just so the price stays the same...
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.
This is nonsensical. Either Tonyk has no idea what he is doing and it will fail .. or is a legitimate concern. Above you talk about how everyone will abandon BTS. (people are stupid / TonyK is smart) Now you make your argument on TonyK failing. It really remains to be seen whom he would be able to hire. In all fairness, the guy has been around and contributed more in discussion and counter-thought than anyone else. Why would it be a "half-assed fork" when he has pretty much defined what he wants to do. A half-assed fork does little in the change of features.
If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.
Huh?
I cannot conclude which one was the major cause of the price move. Most likely, it was a combination of multiple factors.
However, I may say that at least anti-dilution didn't destroy our market cap.
Imo, to consider a valid, established BTS price, yes there has to be some way to directly purchase BTS. Either through an exchange, fiat gateway or some other avenue.
With this proposed structure, that option is off the table. Hence, giving BTS a indirect value instead of an actual value.
Which in turn undermines the collateral argument when it comes to bit assets.
I don't see the DeX as being manipulative towards BTS pricing, but we don't have the volume of users either to justify it as public for making the argument valid.
