Please consider rolling the VOTE features into BTSX

[matt608]

From what I gather bytemasters proposal "solving a million things at once" includes having the vote features rolled into BTSX and VOTE using the same bitUSD as BTSX, which would then just be called BTS.

[yellowecho]

We have talked about ending PTS or moving it to a BTSX asset...  part of this was because I wanted to unify all of our efforts behind one DAC and not create a bunch of competitors. 

I've mentioned this before but I think consolidating AGS and PTS into a single BTSX asset representing a bitBond/bitSecurity with 10% annualized interest for the first year would be a great idea and maintains social contract.  Value gained for all shareholders.

[gamey]

To anyone who will attack this proposal with the naive idea that competing blockchains can work together or provide value to each other: please think deeply about, and then explain to me in clear economic terms, why shareholders of separate blockchains that operate on the same toolkit with the same features, not will be incentivized to vote for the cannibalization of each other's markets if this is profitable(excluding altruism).

I agree they will cannibalize each other's markets.  This is the basic premise of capitalism from my limited education in such matters.

That however doesn't mean that any DAC will find it profitable to act in such a direction.

[xeroc]

The vote DAC will be built on the bitshares toolkit, and have all the features
of BTSX, including a separate bitUSD.

From what I remember from the latest dev hangout the VOTE chain will have only
a SINGLE tradable asset. no gold, no slv, no cny ..

From my understanding it will be only VOTE<->bitUSD ..
From that, it will clearly not be a competitor to VOTE.

[Rune]

Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry if my "not trustworthy" remark came off as offensive. I wrote the post quite quickly and the remark was not meant personally, but rather in a "technical" sense fitting in the semantic framework of decentralized and trustless systems. I wanted to formulate it better but as English is not my first language I wasn't able to quickly come up with a less offensive way to write it.

I agree with the importance of all your points, and especially with the notion that metcalfes law and the value scaling of networks is key for understanding how to make decentralized networks successful.

My idea for a way to address the scaling and feature overload issue could be to perhaps have some sort of "merger & acquisition" system built into the bitshares ecosystem. So perhaps new DAC functionalities could start out as their own independent DACs, and could then be acquired by the main bitshares DAC once it was fully tested and it was proven that it could scale and would work in a large DAC.

The new functionality DAC could have a relatively small set of delegates, and the merger could then be handled through a snapshot at a value negotiated by the delegates and developers of both DACS, alongside a simultaneous implementation of the new DAC functionality into the main DAC client. The advantage of acquiring the new DAC through a snapshot rather than just copying it without a snapshot would be that the acquisition would come with all off chain infrastructure that had already been set up, and then of course the bootstrapped userbase.

The advantage would be that we do not completely eliminate competition amongst DAC features, but we still allow less risk seeking investors a singular, permanent, well branded and well marketed DAC to invest in, that the entire community will always be supporting. The crypto equity answer to bitcoin.

[Method-X]

Also think about metcalfes law, and why one network with 2N nodes is much more valuable than 2 networks with N nodes.

I see a DAC as a futuristic company and you don't usually see leadership working on multiple companies at once, especially before establishing their main product offering. Even though Dan is clearly a brilliant developer, I think he's too quick to jump from one new idea to another without fully considering the consequences. The decision makers at Invictus need to sit down and have a candid discussion on what they really want to be and how to get there. Maybe they've already had that conversation but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like it.

The BitShares ecosystem is complicated and continues to get more complicated as time goes on. Maybe a focus on how to simplify everything would be beneficial? What's the wisdom in trying to disrupt multiple industries all at once with limited intellectual and financial capital? Wouldn't it be much more clever to first establish BTSX as a major competitor to Bitcoin and then Invictus could select all the developer talent it wants (to develop other DACs)?

I see BitShares as kind of being like the Google of crypto (potentially). Only they want to tackle search, video, email and mobile OS all at once. Of course Google didn't end up doing it that way because they needed to establish themselves in one major niche before they could leverage their brand enough to disrupt the others. Dan is only human and clearly has his hands full with so much already, maybe the BitShares umbrella brand could use an Eric Schmidt to organize, simplify and direct everything.

[bytemaster]

I have been spending a day with my kids and have not been able to follow the full discussion, but I have read your post and heard a brief summary from Stan.   

I would like to start off by saying that we are rational market actors and are transparent to a fault.... saying you cannot trust our honesty is a tad offensive as each and every day I rack my head to be overly fair and just to every actor out there.   So before jumping to any conclusions the rational actor who trusts our intentions and general intelligence would tend to invest how we have invested because obviously we would want to look after our own interests and thus take care of yours as well.    We are heavily invested in BTSX and BitUSD on BTSX and will act to preserve and increase BTSX value.

We always take feedback from the community and we are always trying to work in everyones best interest.    So lets identify what that is.

1) It is clear that the *most fit* in a darwinian environment is the one that is *most adaptive*. 
2) It is clear that BTSX has some rigid expectations of 0 dilution and even deflation based upon my earlier understanding
3) When it comes to *money* / commerce, rule changes are killer.

My intention was to give BTSX the benefits of stable well defined and less experimental features that eventually pulled in every feature from the VOTE DAC / toolkit / etc except the "secret network effect sauce" only made possible via dilution.   

There is also a very real possibility that the "secret strategy" that we have for the VOTE DAC may not work and it depends upon factors beyond our control.   So I figured BTSX could have the "killer feature" of being the stable, low-risk, network to "save" in.   Don't underestimate the value of stability and predictability as everyone following the conversation has seen that uncertainty regarding future rule changes is hurting BTSX. 

There is also the issue that I don't know if any DAC can grow to handle the influx of users while supporting every feature and robust markets at reasonable fees.   IE: scaling these systems will become harder as we expand the feature set *AND* open it up to the average user.    So from this perspective, multiple DACs is inevitable.

I have also realized as stated on the mumble session that  10 DACs with X users each has a value on the order of  10 * X^2 where as one dac with all the users has a value of (10*X)^2.   When we are small we need to gather as many users as possible to grow and dividing our users among a dozen DACs will be produce much less value for everyone. 

We also have the very real issue that if BTSX wants to avoid competition it needs to recognize that all of the AGS funds raised after Feb 28th are going to have no choice but to compete with BTSX unless they can be brought into the family. 

We have talked about ending PTS or moving it to a BTSX asset...  part of this was because I wanted to unify all of our efforts behind one DAC and not create a bunch of competitors. 

So now that the issues are on the table, we can have an open and honest discussion on how to resolve them in a manner that grows the ecosystem and BTSX.

[James212]

   

If the BTSX market cap evaporated now, the VOTE DAC and the rest of the bitshares ecosystem would be hurt immensely.

That doesn't mean the VOTE DAC will not cannibalize and destroy BTSX once it is released.

Let's consider the facts:

The vote DAC will be built on the bitshares toolkit, and have all the features of BTSX, including a separate bitUSD. In the long run it will be irrational of VOTE delegates not to expand this to include all other bitassets, and I assume user issued assets will be included by default since they are in the toolkit, and there is no reason not to.

The vote DAC will share marketing funnels and budget with BTSX, and will share the on ramp and possibly the off ramp of BTSX.

The VOTE DAC has some unique system that will allow it provide value beyond the asset exchange and the inherent value of a DPOS powered crypto currency. This will supposedly allow the DAC to gain network effect very fast.

The DAC will have inflation as a system of long term funding. BM has repeatedly stated that the lack of inflation is the biggest drawback of btsx.

In short, the VOTE DAC is basically a btsx clone with a unique system to gain network effect, and with inflation to fund development and marketing.

Unless BTSX has somehow managed to bootstrap a massive network, it will be dead once VOTE is released because the network-effect-secret will allow VOTE to grow and promote itself while BTSX cannot, while simultaneously also possessing all the selling points that BTSX has. The only advantages BTSX could be thought to have are no inflation (which BM has repeatedly said is a great weakness) and the bootstrapped network (currently non-existent; there are only investors/speculators)

Now many people will chime in saying that the VOTE DAC will not be offering bitassets like BTSX does, and will not focus on the same users, or try to make money in the same markets. What you are describing is economic irrationality. The purpose of a DAC is to maximize shareholders worth, and the majority of the voting stakeholders in the vote DAC would have to be altruistic if BTSX were to be untouched.

The economic reality is that a DAC will do whatever it can to provide as much value as possible, no matter its initial design. Stakeholders will always vote to increase the value of their shares - it doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, this is an irrefutable fact. VOTE stakeholders will vote to cannibalize BTSX if it is profitable for them. The only way to prevent aggressive expansion, and the inevitable cannibalization of BTSX , would be to centralize the VOTE DAC in some way (this would have the side effect of ensuring that the DAC would be dead on arrival, and will thus be unlikely to happen).

The truth is that no matter how a DPOS DAC starts out, if it gains a significant network effect then the main value proposition of it will eventually be means of payment and store of wealth. The trifecta of DPOS, Titan and market pegged assets makes a fully networked DPOS blockchain so insanely powerful as a crypto currency, with a level of security, speed and decentralization the world has never seen.

Alright, so my point is that unless the unique network effect secret of VOTE turns out to be so bad that it cannot beat the tiny momentum BTSX currently has, then BTSX is as good as dead...

Or, this whole thing could be done a different way.

Since VOTE will basically be BTSX + secret + inflation, there is nothing preventing BTSX from simply upgrading itself with VOTE's capabilities. Due to the nature of DPOS, it will be incredibly easy to gauge the stakeholders and see whether they support implementing VOTE functionality or not. If the majority does not want inflation, then they will simply vote out any delegate that supports it, and if they support implementing VOTE and inflation, they will vote out any opposing delegates. There would be nothing immoral about letting stakeholders decide the fate of the DAC that they own, especially not when it is now clear that this question is a matter of survival or being cannibalized.

Once inflation was implemented into BTSX, PTS and AGS holders could simply be rewarded with a smaller amount of newly created stake in BTSX, to compensate them for the lack of an independent vote DAC.

This merge would have some additional fortunate consequences, such as removing the need for I3 to spend money on marketing two DACS that are ultimately competing. Marketing two separate, competing bitUSD would be especially awkward.

The VOTE functionality would also get the massive boost of starting out with the extremely active markets and high volume that BTSX has.

Obviously the implementation of VOTE into BTSX shouldn't happen for a long time. What's important is that it is communicated to investors now that if they vote to allow it, then VOTE will rolled into BTSX once it is ready. That would massively boost investor confidence, and general trust and confidence in I3, both in the short term and long term.

To reflect that BTSX with added VOTE functionality would now be more than just an exchange, the name of this new "superDAC" could simply be: BitShares - BTS. This would also be a huge boost for the marketing to the altcoin community of both the BTSX and VOTE functionality, as the no. 4 spot on coinmarketcap would now have a really great name instead of the very confusing BitSharesX.

To anyone who will attack this proposal with the naive idea that competing blockchains can work together or provide value to each other: please think deeply about, and then explain to me in clear economic terms, why shareholders of separate blockchains that operate on the same toolkit with the same features, not will be incentivized to vote for the cannibalization of each other's markets if this is profitable(excluding altruism).

Also think about metcalfes law, and why one network with 2N nodes is much more valuable than 2 networks with N nodes.

 

[Rune]

So, anyone who has read the posts in the VOTE 2.0 thread, and has the ability to think rationally, will have already arrived at the conclusion that BTSX has been sentenced to death.

Dan and Stan will adamantly deny this, of course, but no matter how much you trust their intelligence, in this regard you cannot trust their honesty, because they have massive financial incentives in convincing investors that the new vote DAC will not hurt BTSX, so people don't panic-divest now. If the BTSX market cap evaporated now, the VOTE DAC and the rest of the bitshares ecosystem would be hurt immensely.

That doesn't mean the VOTE DAC will not cannibalize and destroy BTSX once it is released.

Let's consider the facts:

The vote DAC will be built on the bitshares toolkit, and have all the features of BTSX, including a separate bitUSD. In the long run it will be irrational of VOTE delegates not to expand this to include all other bitassets, and I assume user issued assets will be included by default since they are in the toolkit, and there is no reason not to.

The vote DAC will share marketing funnels and budget with BTSX, and will share the on ramp and possibly the off ramp of BTSX.

The VOTE DAC has some unique system that will allow it provide value beyond the asset exchange and the inherent value of a DPOS powered crypto currency. This will supposedly allow the DAC to gain network effect very fast.

The DAC will have inflation as a system of long term funding. BM has repeatedly stated that the lack of inflation is the biggest drawback of btsx.

In short, the VOTE DAC is basically a btsx clone with a unique system to gain network effect, and with inflation to fund development and marketing.

Unless BTSX has somehow managed to bootstrap a massive network, it will be dead once VOTE is released because the network-effect-secret will allow VOTE to grow and promote itself while BTSX cannot, while simultaneously also possessing all the selling points that BTSX has. The only advantages BTSX could be thought to have are no inflation (which BM has repeatedly said is a great weakness) and the bootstrapped network (currently non-existent; there are only investors/speculators)

Now many people will chime in saying that the VOTE DAC will not be offering bitassets like BTSX does, and will not focus on the same users, or try to make money in the same markets. What you are describing is economic irrationality. The purpose of a DAC is to maximize shareholders worth, and the majority of the voting stakeholders in the vote DAC would have to be altruistic if BTSX were to be untouched.

The economic reality is that a DAC will do whatever it can to provide as much value as possible, no matter its initial design. Stakeholders will always vote to increase the value of their shares - it doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, this is an irrefutable fact. VOTE stakeholders will vote to cannibalize BTSX if it is profitable for them. The only way to prevent aggressive expansion, and the inevitable cannibalization of BTSX , would be to centralize the VOTE DAC in some way (this would have the side effect of ensuring that the DAC would be dead on arrival, and will thus be unlikely to happen).

The truth is that no matter how a DPOS DAC starts out, if it gains a significant network effect then the main value proposition of it will eventually be means of payment and store of wealth. The trifecta of DPOS, Titan and market pegged assets makes a fully networked DPOS blockchain so insanely powerful as a crypto currency, with a level of security, speed and decentralization the world has never seen.

Alright, so my point is that unless the unique network effect secret of VOTE turns out to be so bad that it cannot beat the tiny momentum BTSX currently has, then BTSX is as good as dead...

Or, this whole thing could be done a different way.

Since VOTE will basically be BTSX + secret + inflation, there is nothing preventing BTSX from simply upgrading itself with VOTE's capabilities. Due to the nature of DPOS, it will be incredibly easy to gauge the stakeholders and see whether they support implementing VOTE functionality or not. If the majority does not want inflation, then they will simply vote out any delegate that supports it, and if they support implementing VOTE and inflation, they will vote out any opposing delegates. There would be nothing immoral about letting stakeholders decide the fate of the DAC that they own, especially not when it is now clear that this question is a matter of survival or being cannibalized.

Once inflation was implemented into BTSX, PTS and AGS holders could simply be rewarded with a smaller amount of newly created stake in BTSX, to compensate them for the lack of an independent vote DAC.

This merge would have some additional fortunate consequences, such as removing the need for I3 to spend money on marketing two DACS that are ultimately competing. Marketing two separate, competing bitUSD would be especially awkward.

The VOTE functionality would also get the massive boost of starting out with the extremely active markets and high volume that BTSX has.

Obviously the implementation of VOTE into BTSX shouldn't happen for a long time. What's important is that it is communicated to investors now that if they vote to allow it, then VOTE will rolled into BTSX once it is ready. That would massively boost investor confidence, and general trust and confidence in I3, both in the short term and long term.

To reflect that BTSX with added VOTE functionality would now be more than just an exchange, the name of this new "superDAC" could simply be: BitShares - BTS. This would also be a huge boost for the marketing to the altcoin community of both the BTSX and VOTE functionality, as the no. 4 spot on coinmarketcap would now have a really great name instead of the very confusing BitSharesX.

To anyone who will attack this proposal with the naive idea that competing blockchains can work together or provide value to each other: please think deeply about, and then explain to me in clear economic terms, why shareholders of separate blockchains that operate on the same toolkit with the same features, not will be incentivized to vote for the cannibalization of each other's markets if this is profitable(excluding altruism).

Also think about metcalfes law, and why one network with 2N nodes is much more valuable than 2 networks with N nodes.