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.
Initial assumption for PTS was to be liquid. This was reiterated many times. It should remain liquid and DACs shouldn't rely on single snapshot. I think moving it to DPOS (blessed by III) is the best option.
Folks are getting a bit short-sighted here.
The problem with diluting is that it sets precedent.
Diluting under the wise and benign rule of BM seems like a good idea because it satisfies short-term greed with no perceived downside.
Bitshares just prints some money to boost the economy.
Sound familiar?
Dilution, inflation, debasement... whatever you want to call it, the end result is always the same.
I state categorically that I3 and the Bitshares community have a moral imperative not to inflate/dilute/debase the share supply.
Doing so is akin to voting to be infected by a disease that will slowly kill BTSX.
A few will get wealthy in the short term, the masses will suffer in the long term.
We do not want to become the US Gov.
I3 has ample development funds that if spent wisely will get Bitshares to critical mass.
They need to get the client/trading platform sorted, phone apps pushed out, fiat gateways in place.
Then do a simple marketing campaign to the crypto crowd and perhaps a non-crypto-but-tech-savvy demographic (ie. Gen X/Y).
This should cause the market cap to increase substantially.
At that point, once the 'hey look at us' marketing is exhausted, they could consider using a referral system or other shenanigans to engage other demographics.
Low hanging fruit first.
As in not enough or too much?A traditional company issues new shares when it needs capital for business expansion. It buys back stocks when it has plenty of cash. Bitshares X as a company, in fact constantly buys back its shares through burning BTSX. And when the company operates better in the future, the burning rate would increase. It makes a lot of sense to issue new stocks to expand business, given that we already have a clear and well-thought strategy.
You make a good point. Shares vs. coin metaphor.
Inflation aside, I'm still not convinced a $100 bonus on a BitUSD debit card will be a catalyst for adoption to begin with.
The strategy in general is old hat. It will mostly attract frugal people trying to penny pinch. These kind of give-aways were unique 10 years ago when PayPal did it... not so much anymore. I see this as basically airdropping BitUSD on a strategically poor demographic. There are WAY better places to seed BitUSD. Example: Airdrop BitUSD on the OpenBazaar community (after integrating BitUSD into their code). This way it'll be spent within a community that will genuinely benefit from a non-volatile crypto and it has a good potential of spreading to other markets after OB success. We get to piggyback on OB publicity, real demand is created for BitUSD, important eyes are on OB, the PEG is enforced through increased volume, etc, etc etc. See this post.
Can we do the debit card thing without the $100 bonus first?
It is not enough to just look at potential market cap gains by subsidizing new users. We also have to look at opportunity cost. If we need to dilute BTSX shareholder's stake by 50% in order to fund marketing that grows BTSX value by over 100% is it rational to take that approach? It depends on if we could have gotten that kind of growth without needing to spend as much through the dilution.
If we are not strategic about this we may just end up spending a lot of money on marketing and having BTSX market cap grow larger than BTC, but at the cost of too much BTSX inflation. Perhaps if we had not done the inflation and marketing (or just did less marketing), we could have grown to a market cap larger than BTC anyway but just 1 year later than with the excessive marketing. Would getting to the same point 1 year earlier be worth the additional dilution of shares? I don't know, it depends on what the shareholders want (and a large fraction of the shareholders, preferably at least 50% share approval).
Bytemaster, you shouldn't be seriously considering your proposal until you first:
- Build a stable, user-friendly, lightweight client on major desktop/laptop/mobile platforms.
- Enable important security features such as: cold storage with offline transaction signing, multisig with companies that support it in the style of BitGo, user-friendly ways of setting up the cold storage and paper backups and even splitting and sharing backup keys to trusted friends and family using secret sharing cryptography.
- Get more exchanges in various jurisdictions around the world (especially in the US) that allow direct exchange of Currency/BitCurrency pairs.
- Allow BTSX shareholders to vote on hard inflation rate caps where the threshold of stake approval needs to be above some fixed percentage limit.
Sure, you may think if you can grow the value of BTSX early, I3 will have more money available to spend on developing the above. But in my view your proposal is a complete waste of money (and can actually create a negative effect, reducing user's perception of our product) if you first haven't solved the above points.
Interesting... But now I am afraid of having a fragmented KeyID namespace. I bet Agent86 would like to implement his devotion/trust/lifetime reputation system on the accounts in a DNS DAC fork. Having different domain models under their own namespace is one thing, but fragmenting KeyID and reputation would really suck IMO. I think we should try to stay as unified as possible on at least that feature to obtain the necessary network effect.
I'm starting to think it would be better if we could reach a consensus on reputation management and implement KeyID, sign-in, KeyMail, and reputation/trust features on the BitShares X blockchain instead. Leaving the other DNS DACs free to compete (under their own TLDs) with whatever domain sale model they think is best. However, I would still prefer if KeyID and domains (with both guaranteed-ownership and carrying-cost models) were on the same blockchain.
Arhag you are a force of measured reason. Unbelievable effort and it seems fruitful where I had written the thread off.
Well done sir.
If you bought bitcoin at >$600, you don't want to see post any crypto innovations better than bitcoin
I think the hostility/scepticism does result from feeling threatened; the Bitshares branding and DPOS tech are different from anything that has come before.
Folks sense intuitively that Bitshares is not another shitcoin pump and feel their 1.0 interests are may be at risk should a 2.0 platform to gain traction.
This is something the Bitshares community will have to be very cognizant of.
Given the reception Bitshares has received so far I am *very* surprised Brian & Co are not engaging the Bitcoin community in the forums when these sorts of posts come up.
Most (all?) of the other 2.0 platforms have devs/PR folks that are actively engaging the forums. The Storj/OB folks in particular stand out for doing an excellent job of communicating.
The need to keep marketing efforts on a low-boil while the development stage wraps up is understandable.
However, the cat is out of the bag and like it or not first-impressions are being formed right now.
A positive, respectful and consistent response to questions and concerns now will massively reduce the struggle to be 'not another shitcoin pump' during roll-out.
Huge thank-you to arhag, robrigo, methodx, fuznuts and all the other folks that responded. You did a great job providing measured and well-reasoned replies.
