Quote from: TravelsAsia on February 21, 2016, 02:59:11 PM
Random suggestions:

- Allow BTC and ETH investment or at least BTC deposits that automatically convert to creating BitUSD through BTS.
- 60% sharedrop to BTS holders, let's bring in new blood
- Focus on making the internal exchange more user friendly
- Feature limitation - Let BTS be the experimental features chain, with the internal exchange  and a friendly wallet, you have enough tech that blows away most projects
- Adding MT4 integration

It would be interesting what type of reaction a project with BitShares features that focuses on a smaller subset of key features and without any type of existing reputation.

On the above suggestions, perhaps @abit @svk  and  @monsterer  can comment on MT4 integration work?

I like to add to the suggestions:

1) Extend to 60-day crowdfunding. Give investors more time to digest and raise fund.
2) Extend crowd funding to other crypto communities
3) Instead of giving the 10mils cap to exchanges, give the extra dshares to dshares LTM.  The bonus is to let LTM members know that they are in the priviledged exclusive club.
4) Have a good simple summary of the benefits the new dshares will bring
5) Please elaborate how the dividend/interest is derived and substained in the long run. Dividend to be limited to crowd-funders and LTMs? Better still, give free LTM to crowdfunders.
6) 3-year maturity sounds good. Like abit mentioned, these share-dropped dshares should be made illiquid (eg can't use for collateral) until maturity.
7) A sufficient notification period for withdrawing bts from exchanges to qualify for sharedrop

And questions:
1) Why choose a value to be 1/7th of BTS?  Why not a simple 1:1 bts or other easier calculation/marketing purpose?
2) Part of the community is concerned with (uncontrolled) dilution.  State on what circumstances that dshare needs dilution or at least give your thoughts on it

 Random suggestions:

- Allow BTC and ETH investment or at least BTC deposits that automatically convert to creating BitUSD through BTS.
- 60% sharedrop to BTS holders, let's bring in new blood
- Focus on making the internal exchange more user friendly
- Feature limitation - Let BTS be the experimental features chain, with the internal exchange  and a friendly wallet, you have enough tech that blows away most projects
- Adding MT4 integration

It would be interesting what type of reaction a project with BitShares features that focuses on a smaller subset of key features and without any type of existing reputation.

Quote from: monsterer on February 21, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
@tonyk I really like your idea but I don't think a competing fork with almost identical sounding features will be well received by the crypto community - they won't understand it. I suggested before going after a clearly different feature set (targeting mt4) and I still think that will be much better received.

If you move forward with your plan as is, it will fragment the bitshares community which is a lose lose situation for everybody.

I think you're welcome by @tonyk and maybe you'll get some development fund in return and maybe some FBA-style long term income, if you can provide a mt4 plugin which works with the new chain. In this way the product get benefited as well. Hope others to do something is always easy.

Quote from: tonyk on February 21, 2016, 01:46:41 AM
Slow maturation of the share drop
Even less married to this part, but might be highly beneficial [feedback please]
what else? I do not know, but should be more... I will save the next post just in case.

The share-drop on BTS matures slowly (coin-days approach for say 3 years) This is about only the audibility to sell those dShares. For all other purposes - voting, use as collateral, getting credit toward fees, receiving dividends those are absolutely active/normal shares

I don't think those shares should be use as collateral if don't want them to be sold early. If the position get margin called, the result is same as sold.

@tonyk There are limitations in current BTS chain (adjustable by the committee though):

    "maximum_authority_membership": 10,
    "max_authority_depth": 2,

So if adopt one-layer-multi-sig account, the account can have at most 10 signers. If adopt 2-layer-multi-sig account, the account can have 100 signers.

@tonyk I really like your idea but I don't think a competing fork with almost identical sounding features will be well received by the crypto community - they won't understand it. I suggested before going after a clearly different feature set (targeting mt4) and I still think that will be much better received.

If you move forward with your plan as is, it will fragment the bitshares community which is a lose lose situation for everybody.

There is one reason why I think fork is a good idea. If there will be a version of bitshares blockchain without price feed and with 1:1 PEG for all FIATs... then probably I will also fork this, and I will create some experiment for Polish "reddit" alike community - wykop.pl.

There is a big demand for that, but we need truly 1:1 PEG.

Sounds really good.  Good luck tonyk. I'm a huge fan of BitShares but I like competition and innovation.

Go for it

Quote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 06:17:41 AM
Fork would be mostly harmful for Bitshares. It would divide developers, funding, infrastructure, etc. Bitshares has been lacking devs and funding for a long time so this would make the situation even worse. I don't see that Bitshares could benefit from this in any way.

But I can see one really big benefit that a new chain would bring: we could get rid of bad shareholders who are actively acting against Bitshares, discouraging developers etc. Just look at who are not voting or voting against workers and you can easily identify some them (baozi/alt, laomao/Yunbi, bitcrab, harvey, k1, etc.). If we could leave them out of the sharedrop, moving to a new chain might be worth it.

oh , this is the real meaning of "share holder approved dilution" -------------- remove those shareholders who act against dilution . You've said it well .

Have you considered that a new chain could bring in more developers? They would be free to experiment and not locked into decisions that were made earlier on the bts chain.

Fork would be mostly harmful for Bitshares. It would divide developers, funding, infrastructure, etc. Bitshares has been lacking devs and funding for a long time so this would make the situation even worse. I don't see that Bitshares could benefit from this in any way.

But I can see one really big benefit that a new chain would bring: we could get rid of bad shareholders who are actively acting against Bitshares, discouraging developers etc. Just look at who are not voting or voting against workers and you can easily identify some them (baozi/alt, laomao/Yunbi, bitcrab, harvey, k1, etc.). If we could leave them out of the sharedrop, moving to a new chain might be worth it.

Hey ebit, here are the results of your tips...

• tonyk: has been credited 10 ROSE

#sharebits  tonyk 10 ROSE

Will bitAsset liquidity providers be shafted like in the sharebits sharedrop?