BitUSD across DACs

[wasthatawolf]

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.

Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.

Does no one else agree with me?

I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.

I think this is more of a marketing/messaging problem.  If the sole purpose of BitUSD is to eliminate the volatility associated with using the native token of a DAC, then I don't see a big issue with each DAC having it's own internal exchange to allow for BitUSD.  But it should be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that BitUSD on Peernotes is not the same as BitUSD on BitsharesX (or the new Bitshares) which is not that same as the BitUSD in any future DAC.

[amencon]

Not at the moment. Since they are in the middle of their pre-sale it doesn't make sense for them to make any decisions now. Ultimately it would make sense to bring bitshares music into bts that way they can completely focus on making the PeerTracks front end site the best it can be.

I think now is when they need to be making these decisions.  We all now have at least a rough idea of what BTS will look like and the benefits it will offer as well as it's drawbacks.

Not making a decision one way or another creates uncertainty and that's something that investors don't like.  Regardless of what decision they make I think they will see a more success pre-sale versus leaving the decision until after it's all over.

Edit: When I say the need to make the decision now I mean days rather than months down the road, not necessarily this second.

[xeroc]

I can see your concerns .. and can just present my point of view ..
I have no real answer nor a solution ..

Disclaimer: .. also no degree in economics ..

[teenagecheese]

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it.

Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.

Does no one else agree with me?

I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.

[wasthatawolf]

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

We had plenty of discussions like these ... the only difference IMHO .. is liquidity and thus spread .. ... and maybe yield ..
besides that .. 1bitUSD = 1USD .. no matter the collateral

They aren't fungible and shouldn't be called the same thing.  It would be a lot clearer if the assets were called PeernotesUSD and BitsharesUSD.  Calling both assets BitUSD will only confuse potential users. 

[donkeypong]

The think is the SuperDAC only solves the problem temporarily. Sooner or later we will face this problem again. We can't  buy all the altDAC out there. Unless some Bytemaster magic happens you'll have different bitUSD anyway. But this is not important what is important it is network effect that super DAC will get . This is what this merger is all about one team, push it to the sky and once you reach escape velocity it does not matter the altDAC. Music could very well coexist with Bitshare. In fact I don't believe the theory that Vote will have been competed with BithshareX for bitUSD either, two completely different business model . But for sure it will have taken dev  resources away witch is far more dangerous at the moment.

I think it's very possible that other DACs could be launched and they won't have to compete with elements of BitShares DAC. Just because someone is using the code does not necessarily mean they will be using all its features. Most likely, they'll just use the ones they need for whatever purpose. There could be more mergers in the future or there could be spinoffs; it's hard to predict. The crypto environment is evolving at such a rapid pace that it's hard to imagine what things will look like in a few months, much less years!

[oco101]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

The think is the SuperDAC only solves the problem temporarily. Sooner or later we will face this problem again. We can't  buy all the altDAC out there. Unless some Bytemaster magic happens you'll have different bitUSD anyway. But this is not important what is important it is network effect that super DAC will get . This is what this merger is all about one team, push it to the sky and once you reach escape velocity it does not matter the altDAC. Music could very well coexist with Bitshare. In fact I don't believe the theory that Vote will have been competed with BithshareX for bitUSD either, two completely different business model . But for sure it will have taken dev  resources away witch is far more dangerous at the moment.

[xeroc]

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

We had plenty of discussions like these ... the only difference IMHO .. is liquidity and thus spread .. ... and maybe yield ..
besides that .. 1bitUSD = 1USD .. no matter the collateral

[wasthatawolf]

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same.  They only share the same peg.

[xeroc]

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..

What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...
they may differ in volume ..

[matt608]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

[xeroc]

I recently wrote an ELI5 post about how cross chain trading would work (already implemented on the blockchain)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10132.msg132196#msg132196

However, BM .. as usual ... has some way bigger plans already

[teenagecheese]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.

[wasthatawolf]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

[Stan]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.