The NEW Bitshares PTS - superDAC slayer!

[alphaBar]

I disagree.  BTS was never intended to be a store of value or global currency, its an investment.  The bitassets are the product, they are scarce because they track the price of real-world commodities.  Bitassets meets your requirements "(i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure."  (you could argue they are inflationary but they're not really because users have to buy them so equivalent value flows into the system).

The BitAsset concept is interesting as a stop-gap measure to solve the volatility problem that is inherent in shallow/illiquid crypto markets. If a coin were to reach global scale, or even a fraction thereof, BitAssets would be redundant, inefficient, and unnecessary (edit: as money). All that being said, I think BitAssets are revolutionary and have the potential to bootstrap a crypto-currency into mainstream adoption IF it has the properties of money.

Edit: I should add that BitAssets will always exist as an investment vehicle for tracking the value various commodities or assets, even after crypto-coins reach global adoption. However, the underlying token of the platform (due to collateral requirements) will always exceed the value of BitAssets issued on top of it. There are compelling reasons why the underlying token itself must possess the characteristics of currency.

[matt608]

I disagree.  BTS was never intended to be a store of value or global currency, its an investment.  The bitassets are the product, they are scarce because they track the price of real-world commodities.  Bitassets meets your requirements "(i) fairly distributed, (ii) scarce (non-inflationary), (iii) efficient (DPOS), and (iv) secure."  (you could argue they are inflationary but they're not really because users have to buy them so equivalent value flows into the system).

[starspirit]

I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.

Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.

These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.

To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.

aB, I think as per a previous comment this is really an idea for a new DAC.
And although PTS is a step above bitcoin in terms of efficiency, I'm skeptical that a digital currency establishing itself without any capital backing (an anchor for valuation) can achieve the initial stability required for it to progress toward mainstream acceptance. Once reaching mainstream acceptance, stability is a by-product of very wide distribution and acceptance, much as with unbacked fiat today. Getting there is the problem (fiat had the benefit of a gold-backed legacy). Having said that, I would love to find a solution here.
Its wise at this stage for bitshares to promote a pegged currency rather than a new money, for immediate utility by all DACs. But a new digital money, with stability, and removing any link to fiat, would be a really stimulating and potentially massively rewarding DAC project.

[alphaBar]

The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.

NXT's IPO did not help them but neither does an anonymous development team, poor marketing, poor branding, and less focused platform... which just goes to show that BitShares treats it like a business because it's a true company.

I should also mention that Nxt was positioned from the start to have the properties of a currency-DAC. One of the things that BCNext (Nxt founder) felt strongly about was that forging would depend less and less on transaction fees as adoption grew. The idea was that people and companies would build infrastructure and invest resources in the platform which would give the tokens greater value over time. In the interest of protecting those investments the large stakeholders would then be motivated to contribute towards a fast reliable forging (block production) infrastructure. This is philosophically a direct opposite to the model that Bytemaster has chosen for the superDAC. I think BM is right to assume that lack of funding can indeed kill a crypto in the early stages (when the tokens have little value). But I would argue that the costs of continuing development and block production do not grow linearly with adoption. In fact, if a currency was to achieve global reserve status these costs would become effectively negligible in proportion to both market cap and investment capital. Transaction fees and delegate pay would ultimately become zero if that were to occur. But the mere option of allowing a majority of participating stakeholders, at the protocol level, to inflate the currency at 8% to delegates of their choice may be a non-starter for something as ambitious as a global reserve currency, or maybe even a banking/exchange DAC. Is that a risk worth taking? I say no.

[alphaBar]

I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.

Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.

These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.

  To elaborate on this point, each model has different properties that make it suitable for different purposes. I think some/many people were more in agreement with the model of BTSX than the superDAC because it had properties that made it better suited for currency (specifically the deflationary protocol and the slightly less arbitrary allocation). Personally, I think the rapid change and adaptation that may enable corporations to adapt to their competitive landscape can be hurtful to a currency-DAC. To build on the analogy, shares in a corporation are poorly suited as a medium of exchange for an entire society (think mpesa). The coin that wins adoption as the backbone currency will have properties that are hugely different from those of a "digital corporation". Currency is the most risk-averse investment/application that can be built using this technology, and it also has the greatest potential for growth & adoption. I say we go after both the "digital corporation" application AND the "digital currency" application. The caveat here is that the banking and exchange DAC may require the properties of currency to be viable. Time will tell.

[alphaBar]

AB, you have my nomination for the position of official PTS archivist. For the last three days, you've shown more interest in this dying institution than it's received in the last three months.

lol, it's a matter of perspective I guess 

[yellowecho]

The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO.

NXT's IPO did not help them but neither does an anonymous development team, poor marketing, poor branding, and less focused platform... which just goes to show that BitShares treats it like a business because it's a true company.

[roadscape]

Is the idea to essentially launch a DPOS PTS DAC and promote it as currency rather than sharedrop instrument?

It could be both. The honest truth is that Nxt was lightyears ahead of every other crypto until Bitshares launched, but they had only marginal success. Ask yourself why. To this day, Nxt has features that Bitshares hasn't implemented (multi-gateway trustless exchange between BTC-NXT/BTC-LTC/BTC-DOGE and digital goods store come to mind). No matter how superior they were in features and functionality, they could not overcome the stigma associated with their flawed IPO. Bitshares is better, but is it good enough? Time will tell. My argument is that a "purist" version of DPOS has a fighting chance for mass adoption, maybe even a better chance than a feature rich coin with a fumbled allocation problem and variable inflation (superDAC).

As for the second part of your question, I would also argue that such a "purist" DPOS coin is also ideally suited for sharedropping by the "feature-rich" coins. If it weren't for Gavin, I personally think Vitalik would have share-dropped to PTS/AGS for Ethereum. I think neither Vitalik nor Gavin nor any other rational developer would sharedrop to the superDAC. The ideal instrument for sharedropping is a fairly launched pure proof of work coin with no premine. This is PTS by definition. The same properties that make PTS well suited for currency also make it an ideal instrument for sharedropping/distribution by feature-based coins.

Thoughts:

It's an interesting idea and I don't think anyone would be opposed. The biggest supporter of PTS has parted ways, and it's the perfect opportunity to transfer its momentum by re-launching it. Would be nice to see more discussion regarding the future of PTS.

As for fair coins, it's not possible right now. People regard BitShares as fair, but really it's only fair among people that have figured out what the hell "bitcoin" is and how to get some. It's not even fair among general internet users. When a currency or DAC manages to reach mass adoption (through showing enough value and making it easy enough to join), it will spark waves of fairer currencies. Crypto is still an elite club IMO. When the rest of the world can join, we'd have a shot at it.

This new PTS would have 4 options:
 - stay in a niche
 - carve out a new one
 - battle bitcoin as internet money
 - battle bitcoin as "Gold 2.0"

It couldn't/wouldn't compete with BTS

[yellowecho]

You may be right that this is not enough of a competitive advantage - that the powerful features of the superDAC will be more appealing than strong scarcity and pure PoW distribution. But it is certainly a different approach that some people may prefer.

It's true that some people may prefer a different approach which is why third party DACs are encouraged.  Bitshares Music is probably going to have its own separate chain afterall.

[donkeypong]

AB, you have my nomination for the position of official PTS archivist. For the last three days, you've shown more interest in this dying institution than it's received in the last three months.

I don't suppose you'd honor the Social Contract by share-dumping 10% on AGS. Or would that be 1.666%? Ha ha ha! 

[starspirit]

I think the OP makes at least one excellent point - there is a burning opportunity to unseat bitcoin as the dominant digital currency, and bitshares themselves do not have the right characteristics to do that.

Bitcoin was designed to be a new money to compete against fiat. Pegged assets like bitUSD are competing as a more efficient method for transferring the value of money. They could be pegged to fiat or crypto. bitShares is designed to earn business profit, which requires risk, and is not suitable as money.

These are different buckets in my view, although I know BM has argued they merely sit on a spectrum. It might be a powerful opportunity for bitShares to create something clearly designed to be money, but with properties superior to bitcoin and fiat, and using the DPoS framework that other crypto currencies cannot yet match.

[Stan]

The difference is that one system now has 101 warp engines propelling it. 

[alphaBar]

I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer.  Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.

The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry.  The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value.  I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.

This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.

In order for the fork to be successful and compete against BitShares it will have to add value and offer a competitive advantage over BitShares and (in my opinion) your proposal does neither.  Unless the fork comes with a Bytemaster, a Toast, an Alt, etc. it's going to have a hard time surviving in this brutal crypro-space long term.

That's just it. Bitshares PTS does come with Bytemaster, Toast, Alt, etc. The toolkit is developed and maintained by I3. The competitive advantages are (i) superior distribution (not the hodgepodge/arbitrary allocations of the superDAC) and (ii) strong scarcity (ZERO inflation, ever). You may be right that this is not enough of a competitive advantage - that the powerful features of the superDAC will be more appealing than strong scarcity and pure PoW distribution. But it is certainly a different approach that some people may prefer.

[yellowecho]

I'm interested in building and investing in the best decentralized autonomous company the market can offer.  Company mergers are extremely beneficial when entering new markets and introducing new products via R&D as it can:
1) Streamline administrative functions
2) Increase market share
3) Lower operational costs
4) Offer financial leveraging
5) Improve profitability
6) Increase earnings per share.

The merger will be beneficial to all stakeholders and continues to lower the barrier to entry.  The merger raises my confidence in BitShares the company and the leadership of I3, the core developers, and the marketing team because it demonstrates they understand the above and how to build value.  I wish you luck with your proposal because you're going to need it competing against such a team.

This is certainly one view of the world, and it may very well be the right one. I would argue that there is no inherent relationship between the Toolkit and the philosophical leanings of I3. One could just as easily fork the toolkit with a coin that maintains the core principles I've outlined above (different from those of the superDAC, but well suited for PTS), still derive value from the work of I3 developers, and possibly provide value to both the developers and the community at large if it succeeds. At the very least the new PTS would be better suited for sharedropping than the superDAC (for obvious reasons). Not much lost in attempting this, but possibly much to be gained.

In order for the fork to be successful and compete against BitShares it will have to add value and offer a competitive advantage over BitShares and (in my opinion) your proposal does neither.  Unless the fork comes with a Bytemaster, a Toast, an Alt, etc. it's going to have a hard time surviving in this brutal crypro-space long term.

[alphaBar]

I thought Bitshares is really well distributed both through AGS/PTS and also now via three months on exchanges?

I am unable to mine therefor POW won't be fair to me. I was able to purchase BTC and donate to the AGS fund though.

You are correct about this failure of PoW, but the reason it is generally considered to be far better for distribution is that the distribution is *trustless and provable*. In other words, there is no way for anyone to know whether donations in an IPO period are being made from the developers to themselves. This is the Achilles heel of IPO distribution.

Edit: I should mention that I don't think the dual IPO/PoW model is a bad one. I've invested heavily in I3 assets so I think it's the best that's been tried before. And the IPO aspect of it was necessary to fund development. But that does not preclude possibility of a pure DPOS coin with strong scarcity surpassing the feature-packed superDAC.