Quote from: bitimaru on April 19, 2016, 11:26:15 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some whales leaving ship just give more leadership to the remaining supporters. Right?
At that point, I think BM withdraw on a facebook/reddit (Please name me a reddit clone that doesnt feel like russian thundra right now) is all what was really needed for BTS to focus and move on with a more  'enlighten' alignement with workers/voters.

Leadership was lazy and now it's time for change. Statu quo sucks. Both for investment and development.

How are workers who write a signficant enhancement to the code ever going to be elected?   It is one thing for a single person.. but a whole team?  They're supposed to assume that yunbi never becomes popular etc ?  Chinese no-dilution movement has dug a nice hole.

Quote from: bytemaster on April 22, 2015, 03:15:28 pm

Quote from: lastagile on April 22, 2015, 02:17:03 pm

If I'm bad guy, and I have 1 million USD. I want BTS price keep falling down.
What I need to do is, change all my money to BITUSD, Then wait the monthly expire of short order. I'll hold all my BITUSD until we have no enough shorter, the expired short order have to get the BITUSD to cover. Shorter need to sell BTS to get BITUSD, while all the BITUSD is hold by me.This will keep the price falling. 

As a bad guy, I'll lose nothing, while earn some interesting.

I think the rule need be changed. The one hold BITUSD should pay people short for them.

In an bank I borrow money, and I can use the money to do more meaningful things, and I have to pay interesting.
In BTS, I short BTS and create BITUSD, but I can not use the BITUSD, other people get my BITUSD, and use BITUSD, and I have to pay the interesting to him. What a fuck???

BITUSD is for trade, not for people to hold. I'd like suggest people who short, set interesting to 0.
People who hold bitUSD can use the bitUSD to trade, to buy stuff, to hire people to work for them in the Internet, and can invest with bitUSD. bitUSD is like the money in your pocket. Any bank pay u interest while the money is in your pocket?
As a Shorter, yes, we can get more BTS. BUT, the BTS is locked, we can not use the BTS do any thing but hoping the BTS price goes up.

This is not how the world run!!
We need is real economist. Don't tell me BM is a economist..

We have already identified this problem and also the solution:

1) No interest on BitUSD
2) No expiration on Shorts unless USD request force settlement at a discount (profit to the short)
3) Bond market which locks up BitUSD like a CD and pays interest.

Quote from: tbone on March 05, 2016, 02:01:25 am

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 04, 2016, 03:02:03 pm

Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on March 04, 2016, 01:55:06 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 04, 2016, 09:08:32 am

Quote from: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 06:48:58 am

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 24, 2016, 10:22:07 pm

Quote from: Ander on February 24, 2016, 10:18:08 pm

I think this is a terrible idea that does nothing but steal value from BTS bulls (people who hold BTS), and give it to BTS bears (people who hold bitUSD instead of BTS). 

This will not achieve the goals you want of encouraging bitasset adoption, rather it will reduce the incentive to hold BTS, reduce the value of BTS, take money away from bulls and give it to bears.

You can still maintain your current BTS position by yield harvesting. Being long BitUSD and short BitUSD at the same time.

So it doesn't take any value from BTS holders provided they yield harvest. However this would remove BTS from the centralized exchanges and make most shareholders owners of BitAssets while still maintaining their current overall BTS positons. 

(Provided total BitAssets in circulation < 1/2 of BTS market capitalization, then directing funds to yield can be mitigated by yield harvesting as far as I understand.)

So you are forced to take a bunch of margin positions that are opposite each other in order to avoid having your money stolen from you? 

How is that the free market?    What happens if the price moves a bunch in one direction and one of your positions gets margin called, then it moves back where it started?

Build real utility that makes people want to use bitAssets, rather than introducing a tyrannical rule system that forces them to. 

If you implement this, the people you are trying to force to buy bitAssets will not buy bitAssets, they will sell all their BTS and leave the project.
 

found no reason to support this.
users trade because they need to trade, because the need to get something by selling something else.
so the key point is to creat the real demand.
to reward the trading activity will distorte the encouragement,and make the system more complex with no necessity.

I wouldn't call it a redistribution of future wealth but of current wealth which can be mitigated by yield harvesting. So it's fairly neutral in cost but with the benefits of removing BTS from centralized exchanges, creating the Crypto USD market leader by CAP and number of holders.

There could be increased liquidity benefits due to number of holders and people moving in and out of their overall BTS/USD positions. As you can see from an old Bitcoin study, 70% of it was hoarded and hadn't moved for 6 months+, http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/11/22/approximately-70-of-all-bitcoins-have-not-moved-in-6-or-more-months/ yet Bitcoin was still fairly liquid despite the hoarding and had a large amount of utility (100 000+ merchants) because third parties were attracted to the potential market (based on CAP and number of holders.)

As I said though as this is a fairly net neutral cost redistribution, you still have room to make a separate more purely liquidity focused play as well if you choose....