VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting 2.0

[Pheonike]

Bitusd is peg to a dollar not a DAC.

[mf-tzo]

@ Coinhoarder

How would you feel if NXT or whichever other crypto launched an asset calling it Bitusd? Would that mean that BTSX has no value anymore because now you could have bitusd on NXT? If that's the case I have news for you. NXT already has launched bitusd. It is just called Coino or something like that i think...

Bitusd is not the killer app of BTSX. BTSX is the killer app that you could have all kind of market peg assets with advanced trading options fully decentralized and secured. BTSX value is based on the economic fundamentals that support the creation of bitusd and all the other bitassets.

Other I3 DACs launching using bitusd with economic fundamentals can only do good for BTSX imho since we get more people on board interested in different things (DNS,MUSIC,VOTE,BANKING) and we stay on top of competition.

I can see a bit of a rift in the special interest groups as to AGS donators and PTS snapshot participants versus people that have bought into BTSX since it was released.

I can assure you that my breakeven of BTSX is at $45 mil market cap. I am not complaining though because when BTSX was launched at $20 mil market cap I bought some more and bought until they were at $70 mil and if I had any money left I would definitely buy more now since my stake is still insignificant compared to most of you in here... So don't feel that you lost much by not be being part of AGS-PTS 28th snapshot.. Back then there were many other opportunities that could have already increased my money x5 or x10..If you have bought BTSX upon launching at $20 mil you have doubled your money within a couple of months. I am still trying to build some position for the future and haven't taken any profit yet. So don't think that AGS-PTS shareholders are in a better position than someone getting in BTSX now.. People can get in Music IPO now cheaper than holding PTS...So it is not fair to say the distribution of VOTE or whatever shouldn't be given to AGS-PTS but to BTSX...

If all this is confusing, you can't imagine how confusing to make a proper decision was pre 28th snapshot..But in the end of the day the whole thing is so nice structured that no matter what decision you make you can't lose your money long term..Opportunity costs ofcourse exist, but losing money impossible..at least for the next decade.. I wouldn't say these things now but I want this FUD to go away (especially since I am broke and can't invest more) but BTSX is the safe bet to the coming DACs as Bitcoin is the safe bet to all altcoins..

[Pheonike]

For any chain outside of btsx you could just offer a price feed for that asset (vote,note) and create a leg like you do for any other asset.

[Empirical1.1]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

especially seeing as the VOTE dac's bitUSD is getting its own debit card too.

What are you talking about!??! where is that quote that there will be a debit card for bitUSD on VOTE?!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg132066#msg132066

[svk]

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..

[xeroc]

especially seeing as the VOTE dac's bitUSD is getting its own debit card too.

What are you talking about!??! where is that quote that there will be a debit card for bitUSD on VOTE?!

[Shentist]

From this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg115513#msg115513

My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

The market makers in each chain they still need a certain depth before they can even provide liquidity. So there will be DAC's that will not have enough market depth to be able to mint bitUSD so what I think Darwinian Natural Selection will apply. If a DAC could not reach the market depth required it means that DAC business model is not good and there is not enough interests in it, or there need more marketing etc. Like for the brick and mortar company, only the one that are successful will survive (unlike the altcoins out there ) 
Being able to mint bitUSD it will be the equivalent of having a IPO of sorts.

Ok so basically the bitshares dac business model is:
1.  IPO/raising funds (with unpegged 'base asset' e.g. BTSX)
2.  Issue bitasset(s) (pegged)
3.  Generate demand for bitasset(s) by creating a popular service where they must be used.

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.

Other dacs will market their bitUSD to merchants, this can't be prevented.  Different merchants will accept different types of bitUSD and they will be confused and so will users of those various bitUSD, they wont know if a place accepts it or not.  So how does merchant acceptance of multiple bitUSDs work? 

i have the same problem. i don't get it, how it will function. so we need first a 3rd party to bundle all the possible bitUSD and provide the merchants with his own bitUSD? sounds really confusing and it is not starting yet. maybe some detailed explaination could be provided from I3, how this is planed to function?

[matt608]

From this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8527.msg115513#msg115513

My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

The market makers in each chain they still need a certain depth before they can even provide liquidity. So there will be DAC's that will not have enough market depth to be able to mint bitUSD so what I think Darwinian Natural Selection will apply. If a DAC could not reach the market depth required it means that DAC business model is not good and there is not enough interests in it, or there need more marketing etc. Like for the brick and mortar company, only the one that are successful will survive (unlike the altcoins out there ) 
Being able to mint bitUSD it will be the equivalent of having a IPO of sorts.

Ok so basically the bitshares dac business model is:
1.  IPO/raising funds (with unpegged 'base asset' e.g. BTSX)
2.  Issue bitasset(s) (pegged)
3.  Generate demand for bitasset(s) by creating a popular service where they must be used.

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.

Other dacs will market their bitUSD to merchants, this can't be prevented.  Different merchants will accept different types of bitUSD and they will be confused and so will users of those various bitUSD, they wont know if a place accepts it or not.  So how does merchant acceptance of multiple bitUSDs work? 

A bitUSD you can't spend anywhere wont be fungible with a bitUSD you can spend in lots of places.  How can they maintain the same value?  They are competing bitUSDs, there's no way around it.

[xeroc]

Bytemaster may be influencing the market for the gain of 3I/himself.  Btsx (sell, sell, fud, wait, buy, rumor, sell)  PTS ( rumor, sell).  Not saying it's happening, but it wouldn't be the worst strategy  .

LOL ... obviously you are new here ..

BM, usually ALWAYS publishes news once they are in his head .. he not even asks his PR guys
and received a lot of critiques for this already ..

I'd call BM one of the most honest people around in the crypto world

[xh3]

Bytemaster may be influencing the market for the gain of 3I/himself.  Btsx (sell, sell, fud, wait, buy, rumor, sell)  PTS ( rumor, sell).  Not saying it's happening, but it wouldn't be the worst strategy  .

[CoinHoarder]

Saying things like "people don't grasp the bigger picture" and "people are spreading FUD" is a bit demeaning to the people sharing their honest opinions here. I think a lot of people voicing concerns have valid arguments, as basically everyone is speculating on what they think will happen at some point in the future... some speculate that implementing bitUSD on other chains will hurt BTSX, others think that it will help BTSX. Although implementing bitUSD and other Bitassets on alternative DACs may very well help BTSX from an adoption stand point, it may also hurt it and take potential volume and liquidity away from BTSX's bitUSD. The biggest weakness of BTSX at the moment are the volume and liquidity of the Bitasset marketplace, and it is understandable that some people are worried about this possibility of it never improving.

The future is uncertain as it is not a sure thing that popularity and use of the vote DAC (or any other DAC) will increase the value and use of the BTSX DAC, as they apparently have nothing to do with each other other than having Bitshares in their name. I think a lot of people are learning for the first time that BTSX's bitUSD will not be compatible with other DACs and that each DAC will be implementing their own version of bitUSD. I was under the impression BTSX would be the bank whose tokens tied into the other DACs and anytime bitUSD was used on another chain it would be bought in the BTSX market. I can't be the only one that thought this, and I think that it is telling from some of the replies here that others thought this was the case as well. This makes me rethink the economics of the DAC tokens as I have been judging them as a part of a whole, but now I feel like I must reevaluate them on an individual basis.

I can see a bit of a rift in the special interest groups as to AGS donators and PTS snapshot participants versus people that have bought into BTSX since it was released. Obviously the latter are probably not thrilled to hear that BTSX's biggest feature... bitUSD... will be used in what can be viewed as competing alternative chains. I'm still not sure exactly what to think about it, but my initial reaction is not one of bullishness. Maybe you are right and I can't see the big picture, but it is easy to see why some are not thrilled about other DACs implementing bitUSD off of the BTSX chain.

Furthermore, BTSX token holders basically have to take the word of the other DACs that they will not issue any other Bitassets like bitGLD and bitSLV. Since they are user issued assets and all it takes are delegates publishing price feeds, there is nothing stopping an alternative DAC from taking business away from the BTSX chain by issuing more Bitassets. It relies simply on trust that the other DACs will not do this. The potential for future business and adoption of Bitassets is how BTSX has garnered the value and market cap that it has. News that other DACs will take away from (at the very least) the bitUSD business changes the way someone would perceive the value of the BTSX token.

[arhag]

I'm listening to the latest hangout. And bytemaster said its incorporating the ideas of OpenBazaar and Ethereum. Now I'm also starting to wonder if it will have similarities to the Service Listings DAC I've been mulling over (but where the services could be expanded to the selling of goods like eBay). 

I should probably hold my tongue until we are given more detail on this grand plan, but I'm sorry, from what little I am able to piece together, this no longer seems like just a Voting DAC to me. People invested in the Vote snapshot under the assumption that it was going to be a blockchain to just facilitate voting. Anyone analyzing the potential at that time should have been able to realize the network effect was in the identity verifiers and not in the blockchain itself AND that the cryptography for voting doesn't even really require a blockchain (bytemaster admits this in the hangout) other than I suppose to make sure that ballot submissions haven't been censored. With the original purpose of the Voting DAC it should have been clear that it was not a big money maker (bytemaster also admits this in the latest hangout). If this new DAC idea really is a competitor to Ethereum and OpenBazaar, then it is a completely different beast and IMHO it deserves its own new snapshot rather than reusing the Voting snapshot that was taken in August 21 under completely different assumptions/goals.

[xeroc]

Vote shares have been allocated, but to my knowledge not yet distributed as
there is no way to claim them. When Vote was snapshotted, its focus appears to
have been completely different from what it essentially might now be -- a BTSX
competitor.

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

We're having a discussion about airdropping to BTSX because presumably Vote is
about to steal BTSX's thunder, and apparently BTSX's killer app BitUSD. It's
not good to dilute the focus of BitShares across so many ventures when its main
baby is still being nurtured. I believe the current market price is reflecting
this sentiment.

lol .. bitUSD is not BTSX killer app .. how come all those guys in the U.S.
always thinks the USD is the only true thing in the whole world?! WTF?

You forget that most of the markets BTSX is good for haven't opened yet ..

Creating BTSY just to have dilutable shares is an absolutely terrible idea.
Everything about BTSX is already considered to be way too complex/confusing,
and further diluting the brand into even more paths is about the
worst idea possible at this point in time IMHO. As has been said
before, the shareholders should decide whether diluting BTSX is
worth the costs/benefits.

*agreed*

[mf-tzo]

Hehe .. it's called FUD

People still not grasp the bigger picture and start to interpret on things they
cannot possibly understand as a total as there is just to few information
available. period! I'd call for "weak hands" and those that spread FUD to
further strengthen their position

Now I feel that I spoiled the FUD...

Creating BTSY just to have dilutable shares is an absolutely terrible idea. Everything about BTSX is already considered to be way too complex/confusing, and further diluting the brand into even more paths is about the worst idea possible at this point in time IMHO. As has been said before, the shareholders should decide whether diluting BTSX is worth the costs/benefits.

Confusing yes..That's why BTSX is worth millions and not billions yet...
My understanding is that there will be a lot of BTSY,Z,FX etc... chains that will distribute to BTSX with dillution and will try to steal BTSX thunder (which in reality they won't but rather increase adoption). VOTE is not one of those chains...I would expect one of these chains within 2015...

Bitusd is not the killer app of BTSX. Bitusd is just usd easily transferable through the net, without many fees and holding it gives you much higher interest and more security than keeping it in a typical bank.
BTSX is the killer app. and all the other DACs will also be killer apps that can use the easily transferable usd in the net. Bitusd is only the killer of bitcoin..