VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0

[sumantso]

Just read this thread and I realized I was being a jackass buying up BTSX Almost the entire of my BTC collection I have used up in the past few days.

Thanks a lot BM.

[arhag]

It seems to me that having every DAC have its own version of bitUSD backed by its own token (btsx, bitVOTE, etc.) will cause each chain to have a weaker (larger spread & lower liquidity) peg. It also makes the ecosystem, which is already complex, even more confusing to understand and use. Wouldn't it be better to only have the one bitUSD backed by btsx that all the DACs use? Is that possible technically?

Please read this and this. I hope that will explain why things are done this way.

[teenagecheese]

It seems to me that having every DAC have its own version of bitUSD backed by its own token (btsx, bitVOTE, etc.) will cause each chain to have a weaker (larger spread & lower liquidity) peg. It also makes the ecosystem, which is already complex, even more confusing to understand and use. Wouldn't it be better to only have the one bitUSD backed by btsx that all the DACs use? Is that possible technically?

I assume the purpose for having each DAC have its own bitUSD is to create demand for its token and therefore generate income for the DAC, is that why this is the plan? If that is the only reason I wish fundraising could be accomplished in some other manner for the reasons stated in my first paragraph.

Could someone please explain the logic behind creation of unique bitUSD for each DAC and why this is a better choice than just having the one btsx bitUSD as I have explained it? I would really love to hear from bytemaster on this if possible. It would help me, and I'm sure a lot of other people in guiding their investments. With my current understanding I am wondering if I should sell.

Thanks!

[matt608]

What if there was a payment processor dac who's sole purpose was to allow merchants to accept all versions of bitUSD, or even better, all bitassets across all dacs via a single process.  That would be a way to peg the bitUSDs together as they would all be able to be exchanged for $1 of value with the merchant.  This payment processor dac releases shares.  They make money by taking a tiny fee (like bitpay) from the transaction, and/or they could charge a fee to accept another bitasset (from any dac) to be accepted by their network.

This way there would be no need for dacs to market directly to merchants to take only their bitasset, it would be mutually beneficial for all dacs to promote the payment processor dac to merchants rather than their individual bitasset.  This way if vote-bitUSD scores a big merchant, we all win, and if BTSX-bitUSD scores a big merchant, we all win too. 

All the value of the base assets ultimately comes from the faith of the investors in the success of the bitasset of that dac.  If we create a payment processor party dac that where if everyone uses that system it works better for everyone, then everyone will use that system because it lowers risk for all parties.

What if a dac promoties its own bitassets to merchants outside of the payment processor dac?

- It seems unlikely to happen much, the dacs are in very different niches, other than currency competition they are not in competition at all.  There's much more in it to be gained to just promote the bitasset payment processor than do it all themselves.  As well as a desire to generate good will between dacs.
 - A dac going 'rogue' and promting its bitassets to a large degree directly outside of the payment processor dac could be voted out by stakeholders of the payment processor shares perhaps? 


As this payment processor dac grows there becomes more and more incentive for dacs to keep using it because its payment network gets bigger and bigger.  The fee for bitasset signup could be increased perhaps as it grows to help the payment processor grow more and help the whole network of dacs. 

[Shentist]

to Fuzzy. I think that with this post we have created a lot of unnecessary FUD and some people gave good food for thought to competition...

Bottom line just trust BM and the devs..

if i would  want trust, do you think i would invest in a trustfree solution?

if you watch startup or entrepeneur videos - the most advice you get is to try to dominate a niche and then conquer the world. with we conquer the world without outlined steps for the community to take action i am not satisfied with it.

it seems to me you all assume bytemaster is a "jack of all trades device" but i am sure he is not, he is human. it would be better to have more information/guidance on the forum where we are heading.

just to watch and not able to help much is a pain in the ass.

[blahblah7up]

All of you guys are doing great!  I am extremely proud of the collective reasoning powers of this forum.

Keep on following all this thread to its only possible Darwinian conclusion...

 

(You may quit when you have evolved a solution that nothing else can beat.)

Bytemaster and co. are extremely confident about the network effect they can gain using dilution as well as the fact they need it for infrastructure and development.

Btsx is not being abandoned.  This project is designed to fund common infrastructure via dilution.   My job is to lead not code.   And btsx is dac suns job to maintain upgrade and bug fix.

Btsx is hamstrung with a fixed dev budget that will take time to grow. 

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

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.

Now I am someone more in favour of no dilution but there is no advantage to not choosing the general option Bytemaster is for after feedback. So now I'm for dilution.

Why? Put simply Bytemaster doesn't work for us. As he says above he's here to lead not code.

While I'm sure BM will fulfil his obligations to a DAC, he doesn't work for the DAC. So you can either be part of a DAC where the underlying toolkit development etc.  is largely lead by Bytemaster but there is no option where he is the one being lead on big decisions imo.

If BM is clear after feedback that dilution is required for the BitAsset network effect. Then...

The only possible Darwinian conclusion:

What does Bytemaster think is the best dilution model for BTSX? and pretty much do that.

Also to follow that formula more in general. To not support the direction of the key talent after feedback especially on big decisions leads to more of these mixed options and uncertainty.

This is mind twisting.  Like the end of the film "The Usual Suspects"

Are you suggesting that those who are capable of this evolutionary step will recognize the foley in BTSX, dump it, and move on with BM?

[Method-X]

Bottom line just trust BM and the devs..

I believe this is awful advice.  People should get in the habit of questioning things for themselves constantly.  This doesn't mean you can't take BM's intelligence and credibility or I3's track record into the equation, but I don't think blind faith is ever the answer.

There is a ubiquitous saying on the internet, "pics or it didn't happen", meaning a claim without proof or something of some substance to back it is meaningless.  I understand that there might be huge things around the corner that I3 are excited about, but I think it's a mistake to release these teasing statements about thinking big and being excited.  Without details the community really has nothing to discuss, though they will anyway as is evidenced in this thread.  Something that brings value to a Bitshares DAC is worthless until that value is realized by the DAC.  Hinting about it beforehand doesn't do anyone much of a service in my opinion.

There is enough about Bitshares to discuss and be excited about without getting enigmatic teasers dangled in front of us.  Once something doesn't need to be secret lets bring it out into the open and tear it to pieces, until then I see no reason to even bring it up.

Please note my intention isn't to slam BM or the devs at all.  It's human nature to be excited about big news and want to share with your friends and family or in this case your community.  I just think that while it's a completely understandable mistake, it is still a mistake nonetheless.

I assume most of us here are investors, not faithful gamblers.

[arhag]

Bottom line just trust BM and the devs..

I believe this is awful advice.  People should get in the habit of questioning things for themselves constantly.  This doesn't mean you can't take BM's intelligence and credibility or I3's track record into the equation, but I don't think blind faith is ever the answer.

There is a ubiquitous saying on the internet, "pics or it didn't happen", meaning a claim without proof or something of some substance to back it is meaningless.  I understand that there might be huge things around the corner that I3 are excited about, but I think it's a mistake to release these teasing statements about thinking big and being excited.  Without details the community really has nothing to discuss, though they will anyway as is evidenced in this thread.  Something that brings value to a Bitshares DAC is worthless until that value is realized by the DAC.  Hinting about it beforehand doesn't do anyone much of a service in my opinion.

There is enough about Bitshares to discuss and be excited about without getting enigmatic teasers dangled in front of us.  Once something doesn't need to be secret lets bring it out into the open and tear it to pieces, until then I see no reason to even bring it up.

Please note my intention isn't to slam BM or the devs at all.  It's human nature to be excited about big news and want to share with your friends and family or in this case your community.  I just think that while it's a completely understandable mistake, it is still a mistake nonetheless.

 

[xeroc]

I think it's a difficult act for BM to a) tell shareholders about recent intellectual improvements and b) not tell too much that competitors can rob the first-mover advantage ...

I'd say we should all calm down and wait for some more hard facts and information .. speculation leads to fear

[amencon]

Bottom line just trust BM and the devs..

I believe this is awful advice.  People should get in the habit of questioning things for themselves constantly.  This doesn't mean you can't take BM's intelligence and credibility or I3's track record into the equation, but I don't think blind faith is ever the answer.

There is a ubiquitous saying on the internet, "pics or it didn't happen", meaning a claim without proof or something of some substance to back it is meaningless.  I understand that there might be huge things around the corner that I3 are excited about, but I think it's a mistake to release these teasing statements about thinking big and being excited.  Without details the community really has nothing to discuss, though they will anyway as is evidenced in this thread.  Something that brings value to a Bitshares DAC is worthless until that value is realized by the DAC.  Hinting about it beforehand doesn't do anyone much of a service in my opinion.

There is enough about Bitshares to discuss and be excited about without getting enigmatic teasers dangled in front of us.  Once something doesn't need to be secret lets bring it out into the open and tear it to pieces, until then I see no reason to even bring it up.

Please note my intention isn't to slam BM or the devs at all.  It's human nature to be excited about big news and want to share with your friends and family or in this case your community.  I just think that while it's a completely understandable mistake, it is still a mistake nonetheless.

[mf-tzo]

  to Fuzzy. I think that with this post we have created a lot of unnecessary FUD and some people gave good food for thought to competition...

Bottom line just trust BM and the devs..

[fuzzy]

A:Do you have a account that accepts BitUSD ?
B:Of course.here,XYZ. (BTSX-wallet)
A:(because there is no way to send to bitUSD to a diffrent chain without ACCT by default, this type of transfer, will be ACCT ) using VOTE wallet to send BitUSD to XYZ ... Success

Lol .. nice way of saying the same as I did ...
It's basically I wire transfer to a different bank which already use to take some extra time ...

I can see a flourishing arbitrage market between chains .. with maybe a few cents profit per trade .. (surely, ACCT might cost some extra tx fees)

Ive been waiting for someone to realize this exact point.   This makes bitUSD...welll amazingly liquid and creates a situation wherein competition from other chains reinforces the peg. 

Of course if this conceptualization is incorrect feel free to give opinions. 

On another point, everyone here realizes my flawed level of idealism,  but even im starting to think of "products" like ethereum, and the likelihood they likely have teams set up just watching this forum for conversations like these so they can come to the same conclusions... copy them (or find ways to subordinate them) with a slight twist and use all their ample funding (and, like before, funding they do not even technically have) to pimp their product line on mainstream television with samuel l jackson as their celeb endorser.  Anymore, eagles early post about this being a war...make more and more sense.

While we are debating over these things we are actually completely overlooking the most DANGEROUS of the threats to this entire ecosystem (and thus, all our investments).   Imo, trust bm amd team (theyve proven their abilities) ...then if we disagree later (when the system has achieved flight), we can board different vessels that have slightly altered the methods to see which one gets us there faster/more comfortably...Just my two cents.

[gamey]

I think everyone needs to stop overreacting to incomplete information and making up scary stories for themselves.

How did we go from BM announcing that he was more excited than ever about VOTE to people somehow thinking VOTE is now a competitor to BTSX??

Why do people think having bitUSD on VOTE or MUSIC is bad for BTSX?? Is the fact that you can buy music for dollars on iTunes somehow bad for Forex markets??

You guys need to chill out..

It is competing in the sense that it will take volume and liquidity out of the BTSX bitUSD market and put it in the BTSVOTE bitUSD market. Volume and liquidity is already a problem with the bitUSD market, and this could amplify the problem or make it not get better as someone that wanted bitUSD could simply buy it in any other DAC. I am not seeing the connection with how Bitshares Vote will for sure help BitsharesX in any way as they are two completely different chains. The only thing that is similar is they have the word Bitshares in their names. It could possibly help BitsharesX, but it is not a sure thing that there will be a "trickle down" effect as in the users of one DAC will end up using another.

Your example of iTunes and Forex isn't a good example, as people can't buy USD on iTunes... they already have USD when they purchase from iTunes (or whatever your local currency is.) If you could buy USD on iTunes and iTunes was in the business of currency exchange, then yes it would be bad for Forex. Similarly to how it could possibly be bad for the BTSX bitUSD market for bitUSD to be able to be purchased on a different Bitshares DAC. It takes business and fees out of the BTSX market and awards them to a different DAC's shareholders.

I'm pretty sure the bitUSD in BTSX will always be the one people are pushed to invest in by the general bitshares community.  THe market peg is part of the toolkit though and other DACs will be using it.  People will need to deal with it.  IMO the question then becomes how do we name the various bitUSDs to minimize confusion yet still maintain some network effect.

DAC/altcoin/BTC are competing for capital which I think is basically the point here.  That will never change.

[CoinHoarder]

I think everyone needs to stop overreacting to incomplete information and making up scary stories for themselves.

How did we go from BM announcing that he was more excited than ever about VOTE to people somehow thinking VOTE is now a competitor to BTSX??

Why do people think having bitUSD on VOTE or MUSIC is bad for BTSX?? Is the fact that you can buy music for dollars on iTunes somehow bad for Forex markets??

You guys need to chill out..

It is competing in the sense that it will take volume and liquidity out of the BTSX bitUSD market and put it in the BTSVOTE bitUSD market. Volume and liquidity is already a problem with the bitUSD market, and this could amplify the problem or make it not get better as someone that wanted bitUSD could simply buy it in any other DAC. I am not seeing the connection with how Bitshares Vote will for sure help BitsharesX in any way as they are two completely different chains. The only thing that is similar is they have the word Bitshares in their names. It could possibly help BitsharesX, but it is not a sure thing that there will be a "trickle down" effect as in the users of one DAC will end up using another.

Your example of iTunes and Forex isn't a good example, as people can't buy USD on iTunes... they already have USD when they purchase from iTunes (or whatever your local currency is.) If you could buy USD on iTunes and iTunes was in the business of currency exchange, then yes it would be bad for Forex. Similarly to how it could possibly be bad for the BTSX bitUSD market for bitUSD to be able to be purchased on a different Bitshares DAC. It takes business and fees out of the BTSX market and awards them to a different DAC's shareholders.

[arhag]

How can it be a competitor when you cannot trade GOLD on it?!

Personally I think gold and other precious metals are overrated, but that is of course just my opinion. I'm sure there is quite a bit of value from BitAssets tracking the price of various commodities, but I think most of the value to a DAC comes from just having an asset with very good price stability. In fact, I would be fine with just a single BitAsset, e.g. BitCPI, and that's it. The relative volatility between BitCPI and most national currencies would be very small. We could even use a delegate proposal ratified by BitCPI holder votes to change the definition of the basket of goods the CPI tracks as necessary to keep up with the times (the delegates answer to the core asset holders and the BitCPI votes represent the interest of the BitCPI holders, so both sides would have to negotiate to get a fair re-definition that doesn't hurt either end of the short-long contract).

lol .. bitUSD is not BTSX killer app ..

I agree. BitAssets are not a killer app of BitShares X and the BTSX token. They are one of the killer apps of the BitShares toolkit which can be used for any DAC. The killer app for BitShares X is (hopefully) the network effect that comes from everyone agreeing to be paid a salary and accept currency for goods/services in the physical world using the BitAssets on the BitShares X blockchain.

Read more on this topic here.

Usually that asset will be a single currency which must be used on the dacs website.  A currency they have every interest in promoting to other merchants.  So arhags guess (quoted above) is not correct, especially seeing as the VOTE dac's bitUSD is getting its own debit card too.

Maybe, maybe not. No one knows for sure. It all depends on which DAC can get the network effect. And I am sure it will be split among many different DACs, but I still believe there will be one blockchain that is far more dominant than the others just because it is far more convenient to have intra-blockchain transfers than it is to have inter-blockchain transfers. Again I will refer to the relevant portion in this post:

Network effect. In theory we could have a BitShares X clone for every city. This splits the market cap over many different DACs rather than unifying it into one (BTSX). While that does make things more scalable, it is also very annoying. Someone might keep most of their wealth in their home city DAC, get paid a salary in their workplace city DAC, and if they are visiting a neighboring city they need to move their money from the other DACs into yet another DAC to pay the merchant in the neighboring city. Moving money from one DAC to another using cross-chain trading is inconvenient and could even add up in costs. For convenience, people will tend to centralize to one particular DAC if it can handle the transaction volume. BitShares X (by virtue of being the first DAC designed for that purpose) can be that one DAC we all congregate around. Once the network effect is built around it (merchants set up the BTSX client software to receive payments, employers set up the BTSX client software to pay workers, people install the BTSX client software and amass their savings on the BTSX DAC) it will be too difficult for just another clone DAC to take away that spot from BTSX.