There may be a fundamental mismatch in the product and the customers who are likely to use BitShares. Cryptocurrency users are risk-taking technophiles. But the USD, EUR, CNY, GLD are all "old man" investments. Getting into the BitShares system in order to store my USD as a bitshares-based CFD and getting a 1-3% yield is not something that's interesting.

The old, conservative hard-money guys like Peter Schiff or Jim Rogers who like gold are not coming anywhere near something like BitShares. They don't even trust bitcoin. They would trust bitSILVER even less.

Honestly, I'd be far more interested in peer to peer lending on BitShares at usurious rates. Or trading exotic assets like leveraged Chinese tech stocks. I don't have access to those markets and they are thrilling. bitUSD isn't thrilling or lucrative to me. It looks good on paper, but how many of us actually want to hold bitUSD. Obviously not that many, given its market cap.

I just saw this in another thread and I'd like to hear these concerns discussed

I'd like to hear more about who the target audience for BitShares is, and whether they are likely to be early adopters of a cryptocurrency - do they need to be early adopters?

Or are our products worth speculation by financial investors?

What do you think is our first route to market?
Who do you think our first customers are going to be?

Do you think they will be:
Average consumers looking to spend bitUSD at merchants
I don't think so. Merchants don't seem to love bitcoin because it's volatile and hardly anyone wants to spend it.
bitUSD is almost done solving the volatility problem but it's still unpopular. I'm think BitShares needs to be in the spotlight first then become popular enough for the average consumer to care enough to use it for every day mundane spending. Unless it could be advertised by merchants who would rather their customers pay in bitUSD or crypto.

Merchants wanting to accept it as it provides convenient banking services
Content creators and global freelancers on the internet could be a good fit. But most people still want to pay for things online via traditional methods. Could there be a way for bitshares to help facilitate this transaction? I'm thinking a merchant wanting to accept PayPal without a bank account (they just need bitshares) could enter a new special type of trade where they put up sufficient collateral to cover the charge-back risk or something.
I'm not sure how this could work with the need for a traditional bank account to accept the paypal funds. Who would run the bank and could it be any different than just plain PayPal? I think the change from majority of users using PayPal/traditional methods to them switching over and paying for things online in crypto will be rapid. It might not even be worth the time to develop the system.

I doubt it will be used by brick and mortar merchants until they can easily get cash for their bitUSD as well access to banking.
Perhaps brick and mortar stores could be incentivized to sell their bitUSD for cash to customers in store when their cash register is running low. This way they could completely sever their ties to banks and stay P2P.
I think there could be a way to kill two birds with one stone here and allow brick and mortar stores to the be easy cash in and out to BitShares instead of ATM infrastructure.
The DAC quickly matches opposing parties of a trade on the blockchain but could it be coded to match parties offline as well? Something like what Abra is doing for bitcoin.

Arbitrage traders using gateways UIA to profit from the spread across bitcoin exchanges
I'm excited for Moonstone to bring this functionality - I think it could be very attractive to traders worried about getting Gox'ed and legally trading traditional stocks. Ripples recent fine highlights the opportunity a decentralized exchange has - if bts can get it right then the 'compliance' issue for cryptocurrency can be solved and our DAC could well be the platform the 'big fish' want to use to get exposure to bitcoin and crypto.
Can we convince them that we can better meet their needs than a winklevii ETF and similar instruments?
IPO's and crowdfunding by issuing an asset promising to be bought back at a premium from company profits (like the MOONFUND Moonstone crowd funder) are also very promising I think.

Individuals in countries with capital controls using BitShares to move wealth abroad
I think doubtful. I'm not sure what the P2P cash trading of bitshares is like at the minute but if you can't anonymously buy bts easily then it can't be used for putting money where it's 'not allowed'. I think this is another situation that needs popularity first.

I can envision how BitShares could jump from moderately popular to massive but I can't as easily see how we get from right now to moderately popular.
I think a lot of the demographics for our products need bootstrapping to popularity before general users will bother to seek them out. Do you think that is a fair assessment?

EDIT: I'm assuming most of us aren't 100% bitshares or 'all in'.
For storing fiat value have you switched your bank account and taken advantage of the DAC's banking services yet?
I haven't - I can't get bitAssets into the 'real world' yet.
Is there yet a market for bitAssets before gateways come out?

EDIT 2: What about targeting the whatsapp messaging market. Maybe a marketing delegate could give out free bts or some other means to pay for a few weeks worth of transaction fees to send messages.
Do people care enough about privacy to want to pay to message people? I don't think so.
But I think they care about in-game app currency/items enough to want a system that integrates their cash (bitUSD), encrypted messaging/email services, their in-game currency type UIA's and other coupon/gift vouchers into one easy to navigate app. Is this what Moonstone is aiming for? As well as gateways and ID

The fact that we can actively participate in the running of the business we've invested in is amazing. That's another hugely profitable market for BTS. People will be able to set up shared ownership companies with DACS and save a fortune on lawyer fees. Ownership rights and permissions to company decisions will be codified and the blockchain will never poorly write a contract leaving you open to legal trouble.
Amazing times are ahead

I prefer a referral plan more like Solavei's.  1 level makes only big businesses effective and completely cuts out the little guys (ie all the community members I've seen sacrificing for this project over the last 18+ months)

For instance if I approach Dell and get them on board, they have no incentive to cut me in.  Instead, they are incentivized to take life time referal fees from all the users they get to download a bitshares wallet and say "thanks little buddy...on your way now. I'll take it from here!" This gives me no incentive to even approach an a big company and in the long run centralizes the voting power directly into the hands of only the large corporations that sign onto this.

The referral program has never been something I've been entirely against...I just fear the current model severely hamstrings the original vision of bitshares that made me so passionate about spending my time and efforts to help.

I agree with this sentiment.

I also think bitmarket's idea is relevant in this thread:

Important: There is nothing official about this post.  I have not spoken to anyone about it yet. Just an idea I would like to get feedback on.

The following is an idea to:

• Increase bitshares revenues immediately.
• Create an army of rabid fans that are paid to promote bitshares
• Pay those fans from fees and not by dilution and only after they have created value for bitshares.
• Eliminate the need to pay any marketing delegates through dilution.
• Create massive incentives for organizations and companies to begin using bitassets with their employees, customers and partners,
• Create massive incentives for people to run bitshares meetups.
• Create a model for all bitshares chains to automate their marketing, and
• Allow bitshares to be the only blockchain that pays its users directly through the blockchain for growing the user base.

The idea: Allow bitshares fees to be shared with the person who introduced the user that paid the fees. Possibly allow the sharing of those fees for several generations or tiers.

Details (from someone who can’t code and has no idea if this is feasible)(All figures used are just place holders and should be thought out more):  The blockchain already records all registered users by recording a TITAN name for each user. What if it recorded 2 more pieces of information.
1.   The status of the account, and
2.   The TITAN name of the introducer/referrer.

An account may have one of 2 states. A non income earner state/status. This is the current status that we all know and love. Or An income earner status.  For a fee of 20bitUSD a user may upgrade to this status, which enables them to earn a share in the Fees paid by anyone they introduce for the next say 20 years. This includes the 20 bitUSD fees for upgrading status.

For a simple example lets say all fees are shared 20% to the bitshares network, 50% to first upline who is earner status and 30% to the next upline of earner status. When a user (John) makes a transaction, lets say he pays 20bitUSD for earner status here is what happens.
1.The Bitshares network takes 4bitUSD and converts it to bitshares and burns them. (Yay us, we are reversing our dilution or said another way we re creating income for the DAC)
2. John’s introducer is looked up. John’s introducer is Mary. Mary has not paid the 20bitUSD to become an income earner status and so the network looks for Mary’s introducer. Mary’s introducer is Jane and Jane has paid the 20 bitUSD fee and does have income earner Status.  She will receive 10bitUSD (50% of the 20).   
3.Hopefully you guys can figure out how the remaining 6bitUSD is distributed. If no one in Jane’s upline has paid the $20 then the network gets it and burns as above.

There are lots of different combinations of tiers/percentages/payouts that could take place.  That is for us to discuss later but the point is that we have achieved the worlds first self marketing DAC. No elections and No dilutions necessary. And only performers get paid. No guessing who will produce like the delegate model.

Consider some use cases.
1.   Anyone hosting a meetup now has a revenue model and an advertising budget to grow their meetup.
2.   Someone may be incentivized to hand out paper wallets loaded with several dollars on it. The QR code contains their TITAN referrer name and when someone scans the QR code to receive the funds the referrer is automatically populated.
3.   Brochure printers are incentivized to print and handout brochures with a referrer code on it.
4.   A factory owner in say China says to his workers…. From now on I am paying you all in bitCNY.  I have purchased a bitshres ATM and placed it in the lobby so everyone can redeem their pay for cash when ever they want. The factory owner makes money on the ATM spreads, and the fees generated by his employees for 20 years, but that that will take too long.  He holds a meeting for his employees and explains the Earner status option. His profits from the signups pay for the ATM in the first week and he now has an army of employees who are out introducing bitshares to local merchants so they can spend their wages their and so they can earn commissions.
5.   This will get the attention of every person in Crypto.
6.   Have a twitter list? Email list? Facebook friends?  Big pay day on your horizon.

One of the best things about this idea for me is people are incentivized to sit with someone, explain it to them, set them up with an account and be there first bridge. 
For example: I meet my friend for lunch. I tell them about this cool new money/payment network.  I show them the app.  I say here. Let me show you how easy it is.  I will send you 50 cents. We download the app together and set them up with a TITAN address. I want to be involved in this process so I can make sure I am the referrer. I say now you try it and send me 40 cents back. They try. They love it. I explain you can send any amount of money anywhere in their world and it is that fast and that simple.  They say Wow this is the Future. (this has happened to me 3 times since the light wallet has been live btw.)   I say, well you know you can make money with this thing, just by introducing people like I just did you.  Because I introduced you, I am going to get paid a fraction of a penny every time you use this app for the next 20 years.  With enough people it adds up real fast. In fact if you introduce people to this, I get paid on that as well. I have hundreds of people introducing this to other people for me right now… And I get paid on all of it. (Insert 5 minutes of questions of answers) My friend says I want to be an earner.  I say It is simple. It only costs $20. You give me the 20 now and I will pay your fee for you and you will be an earner. In fact give me another 20 and I will send you 20bitUSD so you have some funds to by stuff.  Plus I will show you to a few websites where you can purchase stuff with it or just hold it and earn interest what ever you like.

That is a powerful conversation.

MLM groups will be all over this like white on rice.  In fact I already know of one who would get behind it right now if it were built.

So community is it a good idea? Tech crew is it possible? An answer in the affirmative will not be seen as an endorsement.

Thoughts/feedback/criticisms welcome

My suggestions based on my previous post here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,1692.msg18720.html#msg18720

Quote from: luckybit on December 27, 2013, 06:00:01 pm

How about a bounty exchange platform with an Ask/Bid?

This is essentially a bounty auction and exchange platform. It is completely algorithmic in approach and completely automated. It determines the true market price of any kind of labor by reaching the equilibrium point between the supply and demand through the bid/ask.

It would be centralized at first but could be made decentralized, it's also a way to determine who would be selected for the bounty in a completely automated fashion.

It may even allow workers to trade jobs on the exchange provided they do so before the expiration date. This way if a worker bit off more than he could chew he could exchange his bounty with someone else and they'd get paid in his place if they complete it.

Instructions
As the employer first you'd put up your bidding price which is the highest you're willing to pay, then a bunch of potential bid fillers put up their asking price and according to the algorithm it would meet in the middle according to supply and demand at an equilibrium point. This would give the market the true price of the labor.
Input: Employers enter a job description and bidding price to be displayed as the maximum bounty reward.
Input: Employees/Job hunters enter their asking prices, mapped to their Keyhotee IDs.
DAC: An algorithm selects the employee willing to work for the lowest asking price (lowest bounty reward)
DAC: A bot sends an encrypted message to the public key of the Keyhotee ID address and sends a bounty token to their wallet.
DAC: The transaction and exchange exist entirely in a blockchain so that if necessary anyone with that bounty token can exchange their bounty token for anyone else's.
Output1: The job is completed by the expiration date on the bounty token, and the bounty token is redeemed at the true price of labor in the market.
Output2: The job is not completed by the expiration date and the bounty token is never redeemed, therefore it is invalid and expired.
Social Contract: 50% Protoshares, 45% Angelshares, 5% Promotion, Discount and Giveaway shares

What could go wrong? Someone could lose their bounty token and then the bounty would expire wasting valuable time. On the other hand it would save time if someone can trade their received bounty with another person or split their bounty with another person all in automated fashion by using the divisibility of the bounty token. So if I did 90% of the labor and I could not do that final 10% then I could break off 10% of the bounty token and give it to anyone willing to work for it.

Let me know if this idea could work?

^^^^

The gist of the idea is to create a job auction exchange. Jobs are auctioned on the blockchain. A UIA could represent a job and when the job is done all who have the asset can redeem for BitUSD.

Of course it would have to be simplified due to the limitations of the blockchain but ultimately the market should determine things. Let anyone bid for positions. Let the community for up or down the positions from which could be bid for and let the community set the amount it is willing to pay in some algorithmic fashion so that the jobs are auctioned to the lowest bidder.

http://www.jobauctions.com/

After reading this fantastic idea I came up with my own proposal for how this could work.

TL;DR:
Separation of community/company maintenance (Delegates) and core development.
Delegates compete to act as maintainers of the blockchain and as the human element to DAC decision making.
Core development could be funded by contracts between the shareholders and developers.
Devs propose development and a pay schedule. Shareholders pay into proposal-specific funds as they see fit and development starts once a given pledge-threshold is met.
These proposals are contracts to complete a given task within a stated timeframe for a price acceptable to the shareholders.


Here is a hypothetical scenario I hope will illustrate how this could work.

I unlock my BitShares wallet and see that I have 500 cds (core-dev-shares) and navigate to the 'Development Proposals' tab. 1 cds = 1 bts but can only be spent per the terms of a core development contract.
I see that Invictus Innovations has a proposal for bitAssets 2.0. The team claim it will take 2 months and are asking for 200k bts and $2k bitUSD upfront with a 5M bts completion-'bounty'. Of this 5M bts, 2.5M will be held in escrow for 1 year and 2.5M will be converted to bitUSD on a weekly basis from the start of development until depleted. The team promises to provide proof of progress to
the community and expects Delegates to scrutinise the details.
Underneath this proposal I see that two delegates I trust (delegate.kencode and fuzzy.beyondbitcoin) have evaluated the proposal and interviewed Invictus Innovations and conclude that they think it is a proposal worthy of investment. Fuzzy has provided an .mp3 file to his 'town hall' interview and kencode has convinced me that the economic reasoning holds up.
I am now a reassured and confident shareholder so pledge 60% of my 500 cds to this proposal.
I see Moonstone is nearly funded so I send another 20% there.
But I also notice that ByteMaster has another great proposal but doesn't have the time to implement it right now. It's a minor feature not worth the time yet. He has requested an exorbitant fee to prioritise this work over his spare time but I'm sure he expects someone else to pitch for a much lower cost.
I see underneath that 'script.kiddie' has already offered to whip up the code for just $500 bitUSD with a 5k bts royalty fee to be paid to bytemaster. I pledge some more of my 500 cds and see it is instantly converted to bitUSD at market price.

A month later I come back to my wallet to check my cds balance. Script.kiddie has the new feature running smoothly but I see that another project he proposed didn't get funded within the time-window and the 50 cds that I pledged has been refunded to me to allocate to other projects.


I think that trying to merge the two distinct 'departments' of core development and efficient company maintenance stifles innovation and diversity in both departments.
Delegates should get paid for being delegates and core development teams should pitch and get paid solely for contracted tasks completed.

In order to ensure max decentralization of our DAC the shareholders need to actively participate in all aspects of the DAC.
As we are all humans with short attention spans these decisions need to be spoon-fed to us. The easier it is to participate, the more shareholders we get to take part.
If anything is complicated or hard to evaluate, participation will drop off sharply.

Groups of humans are known for witch hunts so we should make sure that when these happen they do not spill over into unrelated areas of the DAC.
For example; if a mob gets stirred up to oust a delegate providing a slow price feed then we need to be certain that there won't be any collateral damage. So delegates cannot also be responsible for funding core development.

Taulant and Moonstone have stated that they aim to demonstrate their worth by taking on risk and offering the shareholders the opportunity to invest by buying their product (their code) and having them open-source it. Could core devs take a similar approach?

Data and necessary info needs to be compiled by the DAC for presentation to the shareholders so they can make informed decisions.

Delegates need to be easily evaluated with a quick look at a list of statistics. Delegate pay should pay for the efficient running of delegate tasks only.
Core development needs to be pitched to the shareholders in a modular fashion and opened up to the free market – I propose by way of a crowd sale system.
Dev teams need to show their goals and code needs to be written in a way that allows numerous parties to add to the codebase over time. A clear list of tasks to be completed allows separate dev teams to pitch separate projects. The shareholders can then fund development as quickly or as gradually as they wish. Projects won't overlap so less time is wasted, and potential dev teams know that they will get paid for the work they do.

Shareholders who are delegates could also pitch for core development tasks if they are so inclined but shareholders need to be able to quickly see who is doing the job for which they are specifically being paid for.

For delegates this should mean that shareholders can view a list of hard stats that accurately tell them who is performing well and who isn't.
These stats include:
1) Uptime
2) Block propagation
3) Average time per price feed (possibly broken down per asset – this could be displayed next to a measure of volatility of the specified asset for a fair assessment.)
4) Other clear cut and useful stats.
5) A percentage of how many successfully funded core-dev proposals the delegate reviewed and advised on.
Delegates should also be responsible for being oracles on contracts between the shareholders/DAC and core development teams. They are the human element of the DAC so should evaluate the viability of core development proposals and also check-in on project progress.  Delegates would have no authority to stop shareholders funding unrealistic proposals but should use their reputation to serve the shareholders in an advisory capacity.


Instead of funding core dev with dilution, those block rewards could be sent proportionally to each account by their holdings. The funds could be held in some kind of multisig account that allows them to only be spent by contributing to core dev project proposal crowd sales.

Proposals for core development could be published in a separate section of the core wallet in a way that acts to 'crowd sale' the proposed project.
It costs a nominal fee to publish these ideas to avoid bloat and make it easier for shareholders to assess less options. These proposals are contracts to complete a given task within a stated timeframe for a price acceptable to the shareholders.

Core Dev Proposals contain:
1) A summary of the problems aiming to be solved, what the finished product will look like/do and why/how it will work
2) a timeline
3) A fee structure. Perhaps an upfront fee and a recurring payment schedule or an on-completion bounty.
4) Proposals can also be published with the expectation that someone other than the author will bid to actually compete the task.  Devs who wish the implement someone else's idea can include a royalty payment in their proposal. 'Fund us and we'll pay 10kbts to the author as a royalty.'
This 'royalty' is voluntary but encourages 'ideas people' to promote their ideas to establish themselves in the community to increase the likelihood they'll get a royalty and as a consequence more people hear about the best proposals.
The author of a proposal may also be a large stakeholder with lots of funds to pledge to a developer team to implement their idea, so devs may want to attract this 'VC money' and so offer a symbolic/generous royalty.

The party can then pitch themselves to the shareholders on why they should get this contract. For example:

'We propose to implement BM's proposal for bitAssets 2.0. Upfront we require: 10k bts, £2k bitUSD, 5M bts to be held in escrow until completion except each month 0.5 bitGold is paid out from the fund.'

These proposals accomplish:
1) Separation of DAC maintenance and DAC development
2) Open-sourcing of ideas for core development. If a proposal contains a good idea but asks for too much funding, other parties are able to promise the same project for an alternative payment schedule.
3) A direct relationship between the shareholders and core development incorporated into the DAC itself.