Quote from: topcandle on June 09, 2015, 01:20:20 pm

The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

  if that's possible. but no need to peg it, let people choose the value of their vest. could make a full market and a very secure investment.

Agreed.  my main point was that the deposits to the investors account should be automatic and direct. 

The 1 Year vesting period for referral fees strikes me as something that could be a dealbreaker for a lot of inquiring companies.  Its a very long time length to prove a business model that might not even work.  And for that one year, its wasted savings that is just sitting , while it could be reinvested elsewhere or put to work.  Most importantly, this long vesting period will hurt smaller, startup type firms who would want fees as quickly as possible to reinvest into their business.

Now I understand the need for the investing period to prevent attacks.  I'm just not convinced it will work out as expected because of this one-year vesting period.  Now for the solution:

Its certainly possible for these referral members to set up a UIA that will source money from the public.  They could offer at a 95% reduction.  So a normal user could pay 95 BTS and within one year get 100 BTS out of the referral member's pool.  Of course, the referral member would never offer more UIA than he has in his fee reserves.  Effectively it will function as a bond.

The one thing I think the dev team could do better to assist the transaction, is make that special reserve acct linked to the UIA.  So at the end of the vesting period, the vested BTS will go directly to the purchaser and not the referral member.  This would alleviate cpty concerns and bring more trust into the system as a whole.  Once then this referral system will really have one to boot! 

Any thoughts?

sorry but this news does nothing if its a sign of annoucements to come.  This exchange isn't BTS or even BTC exclusive.  Its doing the natural thing and supporting all major alt-coins. this was overly hyped.

Starspirit,
   I am not really concerned about merchants so much as payment processors.   Most merchants will not be setting up their own node on the network to accept payment directly, instead they will go through a 3rd party.    More importantly, most merchants will not *directly* accept crypto, instead they will accept USD through a service provider that hides all cryptos, including BitUSD from them.      In the case of most non-stable crypto's, the payment processors simply hide the fee in the "exchange rate". 

   So the person I am really catering to is the middle man.   

Since these payment processors are first-in-line in accepting cypto and are targeted for regulation, are there no concerns over places like Bitpay requiring only whitelisted BitUsd in order to meet regulatory oblligations? 

A BitAsset with a force settlement limit of 1% per day will have a lower premium than one that allows 100% per day.

Not sure if I see eye to eye on that. I see limiting to 1% creates a liquidity bottleneck that translates as a higher premium.  Therefore a 100% per day should have no premium, since all the liquidity is there at the price feed.

70000 bitUSD are now waiting to cover. If a whale came and shut the BTS price down, all the collateral of those 70000 bitUSD and of all the other bitAssets waiting in cover orders could be collected.

Nobody seems to care, but I have the feeling that we'll go down again soon if nobody addresses that problem. Isn't there anybody here that could tell me why I shouldn't worry of all those cover orders accumulating ?

cause we're moving to bitassets 2.0?

Any UIA is not a newly created currency? Its all still bitshares beneath.