Author Topic: Let's peg stock market indices: S&P, Dow, Nasdaq  (Read 12896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500.  I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?

Ton of mt4 brokers offer S&P and other exchanges... or use Interactive Brokers api which offers ALL of the exchanges worldwide... but I think this should come way after... if we think regulators turn a blind eye.. they wont with this I think. Even if no fiat is exchanged do you think there is some jurisdiction for regulators to come down on bitshares somehow?
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline onceuponatime

The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.

I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
DJIA with interest... if this is not a killer asset I do not know what is...

What percentage of your btsx holdings wiill you be willing to lock up in DJIA?

p.s. I was the first person to buy bitBTC (hoping to kickstart the market), and the market remained so thin that I got stuck there for a much longer time then I wished.


Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
The only thing I ever cash out crypto for is to diversify into S&P 500.  I'd support it. Where would you source the price feeds?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Lets get thru the stratosphere first and get SEC on our side first.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.

I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?
DJIA with interest... if this is not the killer asset I do not know what is...well except my 'self-funding marketing campaign' asset.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 02:47:49 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline srcgpsmp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.
There is not much use for this 4 main assets right now and until the demand from other dacs/btsx developers/BTS ecosystem  for bitusd will come.
I really can't see how it will harm BTSX price or anything else.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.

I see what you mean. Perhaps we need a more in-demand BitAsset to kickstart growth though?

Offline srcgpsmp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.

I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.

Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.

Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.

I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.

I understand the benefits of publicly known delegates but it seem that the citizens of the Internet and crypto users in particular value anonymity and transparency much more ,so the idea of anonymous delegates comes to mind...

Offline onceuponatime

The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

I mean there is very little trading in the existing four main assets now. Adding more would further fragment the existing pool of funds from people willing to hold assets. Getting in and out would be more difficult.

Offline srcgpsmp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.
What do you mean?

Offline onceuponatime

The reason for not adding new markets at this time, such as indices, is not so much because of controversy but much more because current markets are so thin.

Further dilution at this time would be counterproductive.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.

I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.

Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.

Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.

I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it would be to our advantage to select only delegates from "safe" countries. I'm really glad we got into discussing this Luckybit (in the cannabis thread), it's really opening me up to the massive potential of BTSX. If we don't issue in-demand but controversial assets, I'm willing to bet someone will fork the exchange and do it with or without us.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.

I don't recall hearing objections to this, but it will certainly happen.

Either in BTSX once we have sufficient cap/depth, or in a 3rd party clone.

Weeks ago I suggested something similar to this and someone freaked out about the SEC and the risk.

I hope we can do it ASAP though. We need at least one stock index to trade. If we want to lower the risk then pick something from a country other than the USA since a lot of US delegates seem to be freaking out. Go with the London stock exchange instead.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
Can it be done? Should it be done? Is there a demographic that couldn't invest in American indices any other way?
It wont happen. Many people here will cite how it will upset regulators and cause negative publicity.

I support it because trading the stock index makes a lot more sense than trading BitUSD. There are also a lot of people who would put their life savings into something like the stock index.

I would say millenials probably would want to invest this way but also you have to think outside of America. A lot of people outside (and inside) America don't have bank accounts, get paid in cash, don't have 401ks, don't meet the minimum requirements for E-trade or whatever. Miners for example get paid in Bitcoins but might want to invest in the stock index so it makes a lot of sense.

It's unfortunate that others would likely back down in the face of possible controversy. I mean, if we're not creating controversy and challenging the status quo, we're probably not in this for the right reasons... I definitely agree there would be tons of demand, particularly from China.