Author Topic: Can burned Artist Coins be distributed to Note holders?  (Read 3026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I am not very clear on the proposed revenue mechanisms for Notes holders, and am wondering if they can please be described more precisely by cob & co, or is this waiting to be finalised at launch?

Is it correct that NoteUSD transactions (for artist coin, music or other product sales) generates fees that are then used to buy and burn Notes? If so, what is the proposed transaction fee level? Is this the sole source of revenue for Notes holders, or are there others proposed (e.g. NoteUSD creation/destruction, gateway fees, music sale royalties, artist coin issuance fees etc).

As a related question, assuming customers won't be holding a large store of NoteUSD at any time (unlike a bank account), and yield is not a required feature, what are some more useful options? Can it be used to create a black swan reserve, will NoteUSD shorts compete on collateral instead to lower system risk, or can it be distributed to Notes holders?

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
I believe to have noteUSD in circulation you need to short them with NOTES as collateral, which in turns reduces the available supply of NOTES for trading, driving up the price... Is my logic right?

Correct but I think the concern, that others have pointed out, is that noteUSD in this system is probably short lived.  So the 3 times NOTES collateral is going to get released back into the traders hands as noteUSD is cashed out etc.  At least thats how i understand it.

There will be money flowing in (people buying noteUSD to buy songs) and out (artists cashing out) of the ecosystem. But what is preventing the artists to keep some of their income in noteUSD? Considering the biggest sellers don't necesseraly need the money ASAP and that it gives a yield just to keep it there, they have an incentive to keep part of their income in noteUSD and cash out only when they need it.

As long as PeerTracks is doing good, there will be a constant influx of fresh money. So at some point we might see an accumulation of noteUSD in existance, which will require to have significant collateral.

The problem is that at this point in time it is just speculation whether people will hold noteUSD long term or not. They could also trade for bitAssets on BTS chain  due to higher yield, liquidity, investment options etc. In general I tend to believe that this is going to be the case because a banking DAC is most likely to deliver better results in the field of banking than a music DAC.

IMO it would be a great prospect for NOTE holders to have some buy back mechanism, so that profitability grows with volume. And honestly in the field of music it probably wouldn't hurt too much to take like 1%.

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
I believe to have noteUSD in circulation you need to short them with NOTES as collateral, which in turns reduces the available supply of NOTES for trading, driving up the price... Is my logic right?

Correct but I think the concern, that others have pointed out, is that noteUSD in this system is probably short lived.  So the 3 times NOTES collateral is going to get released back into the traders hands as noteUSD is cashed out etc.  At least thats how i understand it.

There will be money flowing in (people buying noteUSD to buy songs) and out (artists cashing out) of the ecosystem. But what is preventing the artists to keep some of their income in noteUSD? Considering the biggest sellers don't necesseraly need the money ASAP and that it gives a yield just to keep it there, they have an incentive to keep part of their income in noteUSD and cash out only when they need it.

As long as PeerTracks is doing good, there will be a constant influx of fresh money. So at some point we might see an accumulation of noteUSD in existance, which will require to have significant collateral.

jaran

  • Guest
I believe to have noteUSD in circulation you need to short them with NOTES as collateral, which in turns reduces the available supply of NOTES for trading, driving up the price... Is my logic right?

Correct but I think the concern, that others have pointed out, is that noteUSD in this system is probably short lived.  So the 3 times NOTES collateral is going to get released back into the traders hands as noteUSD is cashed out etc.  At least thats how i understand it.

Offline Chuckone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
I believe to have noteUSD in circulation you need to short them with NOTES as collateral, which in turns reduces the available supply of NOTES for trading, driving up the price... Is my logic right?

jaran

  • Guest
Quote
IMO it would be better to directly take a part of the noteUSD and buy+burn NOTES with it. This way you don't have the difficutly of distributing all the artist coins to NOTE holders. Furthermore NOTE holders don't end up with a negligible amount of every artist coin. It would basically just be dust.

Ya buying notes and burning them with noteUSD sounds great too.  See your point that most note holders would only end up with a small amounts of no name artist coins, and the issue with distributing them. 
« Last Edit: November 27, 2014, 06:28:51 pm by jran »

Offline inarizushi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Won't artist coins be bought in NoteUSD ? People will speculate and trade artist coins, that can make a lot of money...
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
  It could be a raging success and NOTE could still not be worth very much as artist coins are user-issued assets which don't drive up the price.

Well said thats my concern as well.  We need a more clear picture on how to make NOTES much more valuable than just being used to create short term bitUSD.

I thought about this too and I agree. At current presale price NOTES are probably still a very good investment though.

As a NOTE holder I like the idea of some reward proportional to volume for NOTE holders, but if we decide to take a cut it should be reasonably small. After all profitablity for artists is our number one goal.

So if 1 Beiber Coin would be burned as part of the buyback mechanism, instead have it so 50% of the coin is burned permanently and 50% of that coin is distributed to all NOTE holders. 

IMO it would be better to directly take a part of the noteUSD and buy+burn NOTES with it. This way you don't have the difficutly of distributing all the artist coins to NOTE holders. Furthermore NOTE holders don't end up with a negligible amount of every artist coin. It would basically just be dust.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 07:08:42 am by Frodo »

jaran

  • Guest
  It could be a raging success and NOTE could still not be worth very much as artist coins are user-issued assets which don't drive up the price.

Well said thats my concern as well.  We need a more clear picture on how to make NOTES much more valuable than just being used to create short term bitUSD.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
I've long since thought sharedropping a tiny percentage of all artist coins (1%) onto NOTE holders would be a great incentive to buy NOTE.  What's holding me back from investing is how NOTEs gain value, as unlike in BTS buyers of music wont be holding large amounts of money in noteUSD, so it will basically just be the transaction fee when purchasing a song in noteUSD + speculation which drives price, which isn't enough to entice me, unless I've misunderstood it.  It could be a raging success and NOTE could still not be worth very much as artist coins are user-issued assets which don't drive up the price.  I'm not saying this to FUD, I wish I was wrong as I love the idea in general.  I hope someone can show me how this is not the case and NOTE will become very valuable if Peertracks is successful.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 09:31:40 pm by matt608 »

jaran

  • Guest
I am curious if this has already been ruled out, but I was wondering if as part of the burning of artist coins would it be possible to distribute a percentage of that burned coin to all note holders?

So if 1 Beiber Coin would be burned as part of the buyback mechanism, instead have it so 50% of the coin is burned permanently and 50% of that coin is distributed to all NOTE holders. 

That way holding NOTES gives you a stake in all Artist Coins.  I would think if something like this was possible it would make buying and holding NOTES extremely desirable.

Thoughts?