VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0

[Overthetop]

That will split demand for bitUSD to a couple of bitshares "coins"...

bitshares_music bitUSD
bitsharesx_ bitUSD
bitshares_vote bitUSD
etc...
etc...
...
each time a new bitUSD version comes out... the bitUSD will get weaker and weaker... Am I missing something?
Except there is a great plan in place that will provide liquidity/demand to all different bitUSDs.

also worry about that...

How about using the bitusd backed by btsx directly instead of issuing new bitusd from Vote ?

[kisa]

I am not an economist either and could be wrong.

But if Amazon says 'BitUSD accepted here' do you think I can make a Y DAC that issues $1 million worth of my BitUSD backed by 5% collateral? I do not think those are the BitUSD Amazon will accept as payment. When they say 'BitUSD accepted here', BitUSD will refer to one specific DAC - the one that controls the brand 'BitUSD' Others will be 'YBitUSD accepted here too' etc.

*agreed*

wouldn't make sense for the merchant to have to monitor several chains for a bitUSD payment

So .. in the end .. we need a mechanism for the enduser .. to flawlessly exchange 1bitUSD in DNS for 1bitUSD in VOTE .. or BTSX ..

hmm ...

a centralised bitUSD exchange / payment processor would resolve that *lol*

[fuzzy]

7) The biggest reason of all why we are doing this has to do with the fact that we can gather "network effect" faster with the VOTE DAC...

How we do all of that is still slightly under wraps... but trust me it may beat BTSX to the moon.

"Completely transparent and auditable voting, done from anywhere using only that little cell phone in your pocket." Is now the first thing that comes out of my mouth when I tell people I meet in the public arena about bitshares.  Why?  Because you cant explain polymorphic digital assets to the everyday user without them smiling, eyes glazed over and searching for the nearest exit...  If you want to get their attention (and the network effect that will grow from it), you want to show them how absolutely mind blowing the voting DAC is in the context of  both history and our current political problems.  Nearly everyone intuitively understands THAT angle...

Once you do that, it becomes far easier to apply their newly formed conceptual model to the rest of the DACs.  Trust me, ive tried to explain btsx to people (and I know how to explain it)...but the voting DAC has proven in my experience to be far more effective at grabbin their attention and sparking their imagination..and sparking the imagination is the first step to the network effect. 

If there is one thing Absolutely necessary, but largely left untended....it would be the web wallet and mobile phone app.

Most people keep thinkin in terms of the west as the cash cow...but I assure you that in most 3rd world countries the cell phone is going to be our cheat code to reach a substantial level of adoption. Capturing THAT market will solidify our success...failing to will give our direct competitors a dangerous (and very effective) weapon to use against us.

We ignore mobile phone tech at our peril, imho.

[xeroc]

I am not an economist either and could be wrong.

But if Amazon says 'BitUSD accepted here' do you think I can make a Y DAC that issues $1 million worth of my BitUSD backed by 5% collateral? I do not think those are the BitUSD Amazon will accept as payment. When they say 'BitUSD accepted here', BitUSD will refer to one specific DAC - the one that controls the brand 'BitUSD' Others will be 'YBitUSD accepted here too' etc.

*agreed*

wouldn't make sense for the merchant to have to monitor several chains for a bitUSD payment

So .. in the end .. we need a mechanism for the enduser .. to flawlessly exchange 1bitUSD in DNS for 1bitUSD in VOTE .. or BTSX ..

hmm ...

[Empirical1.1]

BitUSD backed by different DACs are not fungible.

It's more of a branding thing. BTSX introduced BitUSD and BitAssets. So currently BitUSD is the BTSX brand. NXT would have to call there's NXTUSD or NXTBitUSD as there's is different. However if VOTE corners the market on their version of BitUSD before we cement our brand then that will become 'BitUSD' and we will become something else like BTSXUSD. It would be like losing the brand name Bitcoin in my opinion.

Hm ... sorry .. but I do not agree ..
bitUSD are bitUSD .. no matter in which chain they are .. and not matter which asset backs it ..
it's just a name that states .. 1 bitUSD is worth 1USD .. and it's traded in a bitshares DAC ..

the important thing for btsx to become is the exchange and trading platform for the bitassets such as GLD, CNY, and others ..
while the focus of DNS is the decentralized internet/registry
and VOTE is the decentalized voting ..
and MUSIC is for decentralized music trading ..

but once again .. i am not an economist and i may be completely wrong here 
you are free to enlighten me here

I am not an economist either and could be wrong.

But if Amazon says 'BitUSD accepted here' do you think I can make a Y DAC that issues $1 million worth of my BitUSD backed by 5% collateral? I do not think those are the BitUSD Amazon will accept as payment. When they say 'BitUSD accepted here', BitUSD will refer to one specific DAC - the one that controls the brand 'BitUSD' Others will be 'YBitUSD accepted here too' etc.

[xeroc]

BitUSD backed by different DACs are not fungible.

It's more of a branding thing. BTSX introduced BitUSD and BitAssets. So currently BitUSD is the BTSX brand. NXT would have to call there's NXTUSD or NXTBitUSD as there's is different. However if VOTE corners the market on their version of BitUSD before we cement our brand then that will become 'BitUSD' and we will become something else like BTSXUSD. It would be like losing the brand name Bitcoin in my opinion.

Hm ... sorry .. but I do not agree ..
bitUSD are bitUSD .. no matter in which chain they are .. and not matter which asset backs it ..
it's just a name that states .. 1 bitUSD is worth 1USD .. and it's traded in a bitshares DAC ..

the important thing for btsx to become is the exchange and trading platform for the bitassets such as GLD, CNY, and others ..
while the focus of DNS is the decentralized internet/registry
and VOTE is the decentalized voting ..
and MUSIC is for decentralized music trading ..

but once again .. i am not an economist and i may be completely wrong here 
you are free to enlighten me here

[Empirical1.1]

I do not know all the details. It is clear there will be a big VOTE component.

I guess the question is whether VOTE will look more like BTSX + dilution.
From the last answer here -  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg132066#msg132066 it seems people may be offered debit cards with BitUSD backed by VOTE. That sounds more like BTSX to me. (VOTE will also be able to offer greater incentives because of dilution.) But as I said we don't know all the details.

I am not an economics guy ... but from what I understand it doesn't make any difference for the bitUSD if it is backed by VOTE, DNS or BTSX .. the only difference is that the "market cap" of the bitUSD is split amongst the DACs.

It all breaks down to having different exchanges/DACs with different use-cases .. and DIFFERENT liquidity because of the use-cases.
If you are a trader and want to use bitGLD, you need to buy bitUSD via BTSX ... if you are interested in building a decentralized internet you should go to keyID ...

In the end, we will see a set of DACs which all trade the bitUSD ... with DIFFERENT spread and liquidity .. it's not that VOTE will reduce the 'value' of the BTSX DAC .. because it focuses on a completely different audience ..

In fact .. IMHO it will increase the usefulness of BTSX as people start reading about DACs and the bitUSD ...

</IMHO>

BitUSD backed by different DACs are not fungible.

It's more of a branding thing. BTSX introduced BitUSD and BitAssets. So currently BitUSD is the BTSX brand. NXT would have to call there's NXTUSD or NXTBitUSD as there's is different. However if VOTE corners the market on their version of BitUSD before we cement our brand then that will become 'BitUSD' and we will become something else like BTSXUSD. It would be like losing the brand name Bitcoin in my opinion.

[xeroc]

I do not know all the details. It is clear there will be a big VOTE component.

I guess the question is whether VOTE will look more like BTSX + dilution.
From the last answer here -  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg132066#msg132066 it seems people may be offered debit cards with BitUSD backed by VOTE. That sounds more like BTSX to me. (VOTE will also be able to offer greater incentives because of dilution.) But as I said we don't know all the details.

I am not an economics guy ... but from what I understand it doesn't make any difference for the bitUSD if it is backed by VOTE, DNS or BTSX .. the only difference is that the "market cap" of the bitUSD is split amongst the DACs.

It all breaks down to having different exchanges/DACs with different use-cases .. and DIFFERENT liquidity because of the use-cases.
If you are a trader and want to use bitGLD, you need to buy bitUSD via BTSX ... if you are interested in building a decentralized internet you should go to keyID ...

In the end, we will see a set of DACs which all trade the bitUSD ... with DIFFERENT spread and liquidity .. it's not that VOTE will reduce the 'value' of the BTSX DAC .. because it focuses on a completely different audience ..

In fact .. IMHO it will increase the usefulness of BTSX as people start reading about DACs and the bitUSD ...

</IMHO>

[vegolino]

1) BTSX hard cap of 2 billion is going to limit its growth potential.

Now I'm confused? It is up to shareholders to determine if BTSX has a "hard cap of 2 billion". If shareholders deem it necessary they can vote in delegates that support delusion, right?

From the "How much is a new user worth?" thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9603.0) it seems like +60% of the people are for delusion as long as there is a good plan. And many of the people who were against it change their minds and some even said it should be done if need be but only as a last resort.

So BTSX doesn't have a hard cap and doesn't have limited growth potential. Or at least I think it should be left up to shareholders to decide if it does.

Or have I missed something???

 
If bytemaster think 2 billion cap is going to limit growth potential, than let's change it. If majority of shareholders wants to remove it than what is the problem?
 Please forgive me for any ignorance that I am not aware of regarding this issue.

[Empirical1.1]

What do you mean?

There was a VOTE snapshot ... to figure out initial distribution .. for what? if not VOTE!
if there was only bitUSD as asset on the "chain" .. then what's the snapshot good for?

I do not know all the details. It is clear there will be a big VOTE component.

I guess the question is whether VOTE will look more like BTSX + dilution.
From the last answer here -  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg132066#msg132066 it seems people may be offered debit cards with BitUSD backed by VOTE. That sounds more like BTSX to me. (VOTE will also be able to offer greater incentives because of dilution.) But as I said we don't know all the details.

[Mysto]

3).I think most of BTSX holder can accept diluting BTSX for developing.

Yes that's what I'm saying 
At the end of the day it's up to the shareholders so let them decide.

[BTSdac]

So bytemaster, when are you planning on letting us in on the details of this brilliant new way of doing the Voting DAC? The teasing is so painful.

I'm assuming the self-funding for the project will come through dilution of Vote shares? (something that could have been done with BTSX as well if we weren't so foolish to promise a 2 billion BTSX hard cap)

I'm still finding the fact that this could have larger (or even comparable) market cap than BTSX very hard to believe, but I guess I will have to wait for the details. I assume the market cap comes from the demand for BitUSD (I am surprised the only BitAsset planned for that chain is BitUSD). Not sure where the demand for BitUSD comes from though? I don't see how holding more BitUSD would (or even should) give one more voting power in elections. I'm assuming and hoping the Voting DAC is still going to be designed with the capability of supporting traditional elections where each unique human has one vote.

The other thing I want to mention (which may very well not be relevant at all) is that if the DAC's purpose has changed to not just be about voting but to also to act as a decentralized bank and exchange AND means of paying for goods/services in the real world (essentially making BitShares X obsolete), then in my opinion it is only fair for that DAC to snapshot off of BTSX instead of PTS/AGS. But if its purpose truly is only for voting and BitShares X is the DAC meant for a store of value and to hold the BitCurrencies that the world standardizes around to pay for goods/services in the physical world, then the current snapshot of Voting DAC is fair.

1) BTSX hard cap of 2 billion is going to limit its growth potential.
2) BTSX is multi-asset exchange and there will be many clones of it for many different assets... this VOTE DAC cannot support the transaction volume of all of those assets *AND* do everything else we want it to do... thus it will not be competing with BTSX as a store of wealth or exchange with derivatives. 
3) This new DAC will be funding features that will help BTSX holders... ie: my plan to fund BTSX growth without diluting BTSX.   BTSX is just swapping its tech for BitUSD for the tech funded by the other DAC and both sides win.   As a result BTSX development funds will mostly be used for "bug fixes" and "porting features" rather than developing new features.

1). Diluting BTSX you mentioned in MAY this year , there were many opposer. but now sultation is change , BTSX was lunched successly .all inverster of AGS get profit.  recently after discussed with many BTSX holder in Chinese community. most of us can accept diluting BTSX for developing.
2).BTSX was lunched , if it value can grow up rapidly ,it can attract many people by without devalued by one of this clone.
3).I think most of BTSX holder can accept diluting BTSX for developing.

[xeroc]

What do you mean?

There was a VOTE snapshot ... to figure out initial distribution .. for what? if not VOTE!
if there was only bitUSD as asset on the "chain" .. then what's the snapshot good for?

[Empirical1.1]

You think VOTE won't add their own BitAssets if they corner BitUSD?

But what's the snapshot for then?

What do you mean?

[mf-tzo]

There are many people reading this post that get confused, panic and dump their BTSX and wait for the next big thing coming out i.e VOTE. It is very important that BTSX holds now at this market cap and then is boosted in parallel with VOTE, or DNS or whatever.

These teasers about Vote are great and much appreciated and give me more confidence about my BTSX. But, the same time I read comments from bytemaster that BTSX growth is limited due to the 2 bil cap. How limited? To $100 mil market cap already reached or to billions of market cap? I hope is the latter. 

We need to separate ourselves from Bitcoin and trust the new ecosystem. Diversification should happen between BTSX, DNS, MUSIC, VOTE, bitassets and not bitcoin in order to create the new ecosystem.
Now we have a GUI BTSX client that even it is not very user friendly, it is quite stable. I can finally  use the client to trade and it looks like there is no participation what so ever in the client. Apparently everyone is happy with their position so there is not much trading so I really hope that VOTE can boost demand for BTSX by increasing it's market cap, liquidity and trading and not kill this beautiful experiment called BTSX.

If BTSX doesn't hold now, then I am pretty sure that no matter what happens when VOTE is out, everyone will think that it will get pumped and then dumped until something else comes out..DAC Insurance maybe?