Author Topic: Top Priorities for BitShares RIGHT NOW? (Part 2, consolidating the list)  (Read 6561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
I know the list is final, but IMO this should be a priority:

-Running market maker bots to increase volume on our cross markets, i.e. BitUSD:BitBTC.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
I think we need to give a broader range of people a reason to hold and value BTS, if for no other reason than because the value of BTS underpins the ability to continue to develop effectively. And I also see no current avenue by which BTS holders can derive any material income from BitUSD growth, which could potentially help support ownership of BTS (notwithstanding that there would be a bubbling impact on BTS price as shorts get access to greater credit for buying BTS and concentrating its ownership).

In my current thinking, potentially the greatest source of value-add for BTS holders is being steadily cut off. When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

I think we should consider reverting back to the mentality of encouraging as much entrepreneurialism as possible. The profit motive can be used to incentivise much greater innovation and development within the Bitshares ecosystem. If such businesses were allowed to share common infrastructure such as BitCurrencies, exchanges etc, while still being able to build their own businesses and block-chains that interact with that infrastructure, new players with flexible business models are encouraged and the network effect accelerates. They would naturally be the merchants adopting BitUSD and other common goods. BitShares' own core developers can focus on the task of enabling the infrastructure for this to happen, maximising the value of future share-drops on BTS. I think this toolkit requires not just the development of the common infrastructure, but the tools that entrepreneurs will need to integrate easily with it. For example, some solutions (even human hacks at first) to the issue of operating with multiple chains. BTS owners would therefore be developing very different public good features compared to the private goods of other entrepreneurs, and there is no need for the asphyxiating defensiveness of the "SuperDAC must have everything" mentality.

These are just my inexpert and fluid impressions on this matter, misguided or fanciful as they may be. Apologies if this is of no value to the conversation.
+5% +5% +5%

We need some sort of deflationary mechanism for BTS... I updated this proposal here and really liked it.. majority of projects funded via delegates WILL NOT provide financial benefits in the end and as a result are inflated away right now to investors when instead they should be deflated.. only projects that succeed are merged into bts and thus inflated... making inflation alot less.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10385.15

Take a look at the proposal.. its meant for majority of projects that we want to merge into BTS.. not the ones that would provide service to BTS... which is a majority of the stuff today.. but if we follow this model maybe it will create more deflationary pressure.
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
 I think that arhag post was lost in the forum and not many people read it. So here a really quick resume maybe more people will pay attention to it. So the child-dac it is much closer to the the original Bitshare concept of multiple chains instead of one chain to rule them all . Basically  is side chains for Bitshares . What is does, is each side chain use it own businesses logic but all the bitAssets used are backed by BTS.  Think of Music and Play but all of their bitAssets backed by BTS only, how great this will be ? Ohh a no cross chain trading need it either.

Offline SolomonSollarsNSense

ArHag as DataNodeSecurity suggested this is a very VERY timely post. Particularly for me as I am about to propose a new DAC project called BitShares Video (which is in line with my personal project). BitShares video will be the open-source component of my project Sollywood TV/Sollars similar to BitShares Music and PeerTrack.

The thread will go up either today or tomorrow on this forum. It will be in the 3rd Party DAC section. I would love everyone's input and discussion when it comes to financing, structuring and share dropping which was planned but needs to be strategic as Arhag suggested.

The main element of the project that still needs to be figured out are the issues we are discussing here. So this can be a practical use case for some of Arhag's ideas and everyone else who is interested in getting entrepreneurs on board to power BitShares technology and possibly all of us to the moon.

Anyone who talks to me knows that I believe what will gain BitShares a larger market cap is its technology powering entrepreneurs and consumer-friendly business ideas such as my own. We will not win this game trying to do what BitCoin has done or what Ethereum has done. If BitShares can be known as the new Linux for powering commercial businesses such as Apple etc etc and actually be powering an Apple, or a SnapChat or a Facebook-like consumer friendly business what kind of market cap do you believe we would have today?

No REALLY think about that...

We are the nerds in high school. They are the popular jocks. We need to remember who always wins in the end and stick to what we can do best. That may not be everyone's belief but it is mine and I am following through on it.

I am going to create explainers for the BitShares video project in the same vein as the ones I created for Sollars and Sense. I am creating the scripts now along with helping out the individual who is going to register my delegate bid and maintain it. Yes I found someone and we worked out a deal that is perfect for our current needs. He can name himself if he would like.

BitShares is missing a serious opportunity and I will be damned if I don't get you all to see that. Peace  >:( :D
If you like the content I make consider tipping me. Helps me keep those bitshare content babies popping like popcorn! Send tips to: solomonsollarsnsense

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]

But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.

I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here.

[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:
  • People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
  • Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
  • The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
  • If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.

Arhag.. I can't tell u how timely your post is for me right now. You have given me some things to think about.

I think the child-dac concept would certainly bring a lot of benefits.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here.
Arhag, I just read your thread for the first time because I was originally put off by its sheer length. Having now read it, and without understanding all its nuances yet, I think it is a brilliant and potentially elegant solution to the concerns I have raised. As I understand it, child DACs as you propose would allow businesses to be established that would have the full flexibility of their own chain and business logic, coupled with the security of using the main chain to implement stakeholder controls on the allocation and application of the capital employed within the business. There is no need to use a base currency other than those that exist on the main chain, maximising network effect, and yet there is also no need to clog the main chain with the inner workings of every DAC that gets developed, maximising network efficiency.

In several posts now, I've expressed a need for businesses to be able to interact with multiple chains. This is necessary from a entrepreneur's perspective to retain flexibility in the business model and critically to be able to deal with assets and resources not expressed in the main chain. From a system perspective, its necessary to prevent the clog that would occur by trying to shift the world economy onto a single chain. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment in that thread that "with interchain communication and fund transfers, many things become possible". This is game-changing thinking. I currently believe that this is exactly the type of development work that should be prioritised - building the core infrastructure and flexibility of the ecosystem for innovators, so that new players can come in from outside and create a myriad of things we can't yet imagine. Its that growth path that could further explode the demand for bitAssets and BTS. Everybody needs to take up that thread again and build on it.

The only missing link for me is still how value accrues directly for BTS holders, but I'm feeling more possibilities now.








Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile

I want to try to check this post.
Task complete: 1 points; Task failed: -1 points; Task made great progress: 0 points.
1)   Light Weight Client (only dev version but close, 1 points)
2)   Web Wallet (VA dev and Yunbi are both working on, but no timeline, 0 points)
3)     BTS wallet improvement ----> more fluent, more stable (I myself found the 0.6.1 crash often, PS I am a heavy user, 0 points)
4)     basic voting feature support (I think vote is as complicated as before? -1 points)
5)     easy to use multi-sig for cold storage (function released, but easy? 1 points)
6)     Bitshares mail -1 (no mail, -1 points)
7)       User-Issued Asset (UIA) features (not certain about this dev.snow's progress, ? points)
8)   Lots of quality documentation (ie: BM's blog) (We have BM's blog, Stan's The Origin of BitShares, but not enough, e.g. we don't have a wiki frontpage as coolspeed mentioned, we don't have a new ann post after the "merger". 0 points)
9)   Whitepapers (Same as 3?) (Same as 8, 0 points)
10)   Documentation of the code base to reduce the learning curve of getting more devs involved. (Maybe toast is working on it, maybe already show on GitHub? ? points)
11)   Press Kit (I don't understand this maybe same as 13? ? points)
12)   Marketing (Too comprehensive to evaluate, but based the price performance... 0 points)
13)   widespread media coverage (bitsharestv is starting this! (Two coindesk articles, i.e. Play Dacx & Bitshares, several chinese articles by chenhaonan. As to bitshares.tv, only has 112 twitter followers. I don't think it is widespread by any definition. 0 points)
14)   Something like the original famous 'weusecoins' video (? points)
15)   Gateways (metaexchange, shapeshift, tradebts.com etc. Also dev.snow work on the code level. But as I can expect we need a USD ramp off just as tradebts.com, in this case it's a long long shot. 0 points)
16)   Easy fiat onramps from USD into both BTS and bitUSD  (-1 points)
17)   Getting listed on one of the top exchanges (BTCChina, OKCoin, Bitfinex or Bitstamp) (We are publicly refused by okcoin on reddit, no progress made I think. -1 points)
18)   Getting bitUSD accepted on one of the top crypto marketplaces. (remittance market, mariguana market? -1 points)
19)   Workable debit card for bitUSD (-1 points)
20)   merchant adoption (-1 points)
21)  Ecommerce plugins (I think this is not hard, I would consider it's done. 1 points)
22)   API providers (think chain.com) (blackwave is out, so no? -1 points)
23)   network stability (DevShares?) (perfect, 1 points)

The total score is -4 points, and 4 completed or near completed items total.
The price is dropped from 0.1 CNY to 0.056 CNY, -44%; while BTC's price dropped from 1960 CNY to 1544 CNY, -21%; Dogecoin from 0.00113 CNY to 0.00092 CNY, -19%. ouch!
i believe it is the ecosystem work. Dogecoin and bitcoin have large community and recognition. Now most average people never heard of digital currency, or just heard but not familiar. The next decade is wave that the larger average people learnt about digital currency and use it.  Most important thing is not better than other digital currency, but much better can traditional way. So i think use-case to solve real problem of people is the key point.

Offline merlin0113

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]

But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.

I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here.

[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:
  • People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
  • Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
  • The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
  • If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.

arhag, I found your posts here and on reddit very descriptive and logic. I tend to believe that the current BTS system is sustainable. Also I am very convinced by BM's economics theory on which built BTS system.

I think maybe you can help to creat many nice in-depth documentation standardization, You have GIFT and nice to have you with us.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

First of all, I am not a huge fan of this sharedrop theory. Putting myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur trying to create a new DAC, I don't see the point in sharedropping to all BTS holders when only a fraction of them would be interested in actually holding the new token. The rest would probably just dump the gifted tokens anyway. Instead, I think it makes more sense to filter out the stakeholders who are apathetic or outright against the new DAC idea by only sharedropping on the "mailing list" of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, a crowd-sale. [1]

But even if we accept this sharedrop theory as rational, I don't see how it adds value to BTS. It gives value to BTS holders, but it doesn't increase the price of the BTS token. Therefore, it does not help support the pay of BitShares delegates funded through BTS dilution who are, for example, funding the development of all the common toolkit code that all these other DACs could benefit from.

I do however see the value of allowing entrepreneurs to innovate on blockchain technology even outside of the role of a paid delegate on the BitShares blockchain. This doesn't solve the BitShares delegate payment issue, but it does still add to the overall ecosystem. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to rebuild the entire infrastructure, in particular market-pegged assets with sufficient liquidity. It would be better if these new DACs could simply use the BitAssets of the BitShares blockchain. The solution to this in my opinion are child DACs, which I have discussed here.

[1] But I would do this crowd sale in a far more decentralized manner:
  • People donate BitUSD into a special smart contract that behaves like a Kickstarter. For each BitUSD they donate into that reserve, they get back a share in the new DAC to be created. If the minimum BitUSD threshold is not reached by the specified expiration date, all funds will be returned back to their donators. This is basically an assurance contract but where the donators receive shares proving how much they donated. Another tweak is to let the creator of the contract provide some initial BitUSD that will be divided proportionally to the donators if the fundraising threshold is not reached (making it a dominant assurance contract).
  • Assuming the fundraising threshold is reached by the expiration date, the crowd-sale will be officially over and the next stage of the birth of the DAC can begin. First, a super majority of the stakeholders reach consensus (by voting on a slate with their stake) on a particular multisig account that will be allowed to manage the funds (this is like the multisig managers in my child DAC proposal). This slate of accounts chosen to be part of the multisig will also be the initial delegates of the new DAC.
  • The new DAC launches with its own blockchain, except its core stake is still on the BitShares blockchain and the DAC's consensus algorithm looks to the stake distribution and slate votes of the shares on the BitShares blockchain to determine delegate ranks in the new DAC's blockchain. At this point the new DAC is a child DAC of the BitShares blockchain and it can stay this way and utilize the BitAssets of BitShares blockchain (more precisely derivatives of BitAssets backed by the real BitAssets in the reserve existing on the BitShares blockchain, which can be used to withdraw the real BitAssets from the reserve with the approval of the managers and lack of panic by shareholders) rather than creating its own. It also has a large initial pool of BitUSD in its reserves from the crowd sale, which can be used to pay the delegates/workers of the child DAC instead of dilution (share dilution can work too, but the managers need to increase the share supply on the BitShares blockchain with approval, or at least lack of panic, by the existing shareholders).
  • If the child DAC wants to break free from the parent as its own independent full DAC, it needs to first begin the process of moving the BitAssets in its reserves over into its own market-pegged assets collateralized by the shares in the DAC. The shares in BitShares blockchain can be destroyed in a special way which causes the delegates on the child DAC's blockchain to mint a corresponding amount of those shares on their blockchain and give it to the accounts that destroyed their shares. These shares on the child DAC's blockchain can then act as the collateral supporting the DACUSD shorted into existence in the child DAC's blockchain. The DACUSD can be exchanged for the BitUSD derivatives on the child DAC, which then can be withdrawn as BitUSD from the reserves on the BitShares DAC. If this process happens gradually and at a time when the DAC market cap is already much higher than the supply of BitUSD in the reserves, then hopefully the point at which the ownership of the remaining shares on the BitShares blockchain is not sufficiently decentralized (to prevent, via panics and forceful changes in manager slates, the managers from misbehaving) should be when the BitAssets held in reserves are already so small that the managers/delegates will have more to lose in opportunity cost from losing their delegate position than the amount they can steal. After the reserve has been depleted of all remaining BitAssets, any remaining shares still existing on the BitShares blockchain are also destroyed/moved over to the child DAC's blockchain, and then at that point the child DAC is no longer a child DAC but its own independent DAC which does not need to pay attention to the BitShares blockchain any longer.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 03:44:13 am by arhag »

Offline hpenvy2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Priority 1

1)   Light Weight Client
2)   Web Wallet
3)     BTS wallet improvement

- I'd include Hedgewallet and the Mobile wallet in this list
    * It's a shame core development wasn't involved with this earlier as a reason to use BitUSD. We could have used Bitcoin's network effect to help show an immediate use for BitUSD.
- Tool tips
- A walkthrough button in the client explaining how to use each option with arrows and screenshots
- Link to video tutorials
- Recommend putting the delegate voting information in advanced until it is much easier to understand


Priority 2


12)   Marketing

Marketing is doing fine building infrastructure and building processes.  Once the clients are ready, this give marketing exactly what they need to start pushing the BitShares message.  If you look at the feedback we're receiving in BCT, even those that are in crypto have a real hard time understanding BitShares. An optimized wallet sets them on the right path.

13)   Widespread media coverage

If Nullstreet can pull off the coordination of Hedgewallet (moving between Bitcoin and BitAssets in 1 wallet), we can push it to every Bitcoin friendly publication.  We immediately tap into their large network. We provide a strong funnel to use BitUSD which will help us with merchant/user option down the road.

5)    Easy to use multi-sig for cold storage

The only way we convert the large Bitcoin holders is to make sure they feel safe with cold storage.


Priority 3


7)       User-Issued Asset (UIA) features

8)   Lots of quality documentation (ie: BM's blog)

9)   Whitepapers (Same as 3?)

- UIA features give marketing a second push
- Documentation will help us attract additional development help
- Integration documents for exchanges and other services make that conversation much easier for our business development delegates


Priority 4

17)   Getting listed on one of the top exchanges (BTCChina, OKCoin, Bitfinex or Bitstamp)

18)   Getting bitUSD accepted on one of the top crypto marketplaces

19)   Workable debit card for bitUSD

20)   merchant adoption 

15)   Gateways

16)   Easy fiat onramps from USD into both BTS and bitUSD  (same as 5?)

- Obviously many of these options are already being investigated one way or another
- By time the first 3 priorities are complete, Priority 4 should be a natural progression


Priority 5

- Prediction markets, bond market, margin etc


Currently

- In the last weekly update, BM mentioned gateway infrastructure development is already active
- I know there was talk of a press kit direction on Nullstreet, need to get an update if that's still an active project
- I've been sending Gentso contacts, he's been actively going after payment processors, debit cards, gateways etc.  That won't happen overnight.
- Bridges are currently deployed, I saw a post about a gateway being worked on in the BitShares community.
- Jsidhu is working on different ecommerce plugins
- Video production is being outlined on Nullstreet

« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 03:52:12 am by hpenvy2 »

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Bitusd on top crypto marketplaces? Ecommerce plugins cover this
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
I think we need to give a broader range of people a reason to hold and value BTS, if for no other reason than because the value of BTS underpins the ability to continue to develop effectively. And I also see no current avenue by which BTS holders can derive any material income from BitUSD growth, which could potentially help support ownership of BTS (notwithstanding that there would be a bubbling impact on BTS price as shorts get access to greater credit for buying BTS and concentrating its ownership).

In my current thinking, potentially the greatest source of value-add for BTS holders is being steadily cut off. When BitShares was established, the idea seemed to be to promote a toolkit on which entrepreneurs could build new businesses, and share-drop the existing community in recognition of past value created and future network effect. Potentially there could have been dozens and eventually thousands of such businesses, significantly enhancing the value of community tokens being share-dropped on, such as BTS. The Super-DAC seems to have created a situation however, at least in my mind, where the entrepreneur is forced to choose between replicating the same infrastructure as Bitshares without the advantage of an initial network effect (e.g. its own stable currency or its own exchange), or to work for the system as a delegate within BitShares, subject to the constraints on business structure, nature of work and income (a delegate is as much a public servant as an entrepreneur). I'd be keen to hear alternative thoughts on this.

I think we should consider reverting back to the mentality of encouraging as much entrepreneurialism as possible. The profit motive can be used to incentivise much greater innovation and development within the Bitshares ecosystem. If such businesses were allowed to share common infrastructure such as BitCurrencies, exchanges etc, while still being able to build their own businesses and block-chains that interact with that infrastructure, new players with flexible business models are encouraged and the network effect accelerates. They would naturally be the merchants adopting BitUSD and other common goods. BitShares' own core developers can focus on the task of enabling the infrastructure for this to happen, maximising the value of future share-drops on BTS. I think this toolkit requires not just the development of the common infrastructure, but the tools that entrepreneurs will need to integrate easily with it. For example, some solutions (even human hacks at first) to the issue of operating with multiple chains. BTS owners would therefore be developing very different public good features compared to the private goods of other entrepreneurs, and there is no need for the asphyxiating defensiveness of the "SuperDAC must have everything" mentality.

These are just my inexpert and fluid impressions on this matter, misguided or fanciful as they may be. Apologies if this is of no value to the conversation.

Offline fuzzy

Cold storage is pretty easy.  Is it maybe that you're looking for cold storage with voting abilities intact?

That could be stage two.  Not really necessary right off the bat though.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline faddat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: faddat
Cold storage is pretty easy.  Is it maybe that you're looking for cold storage with voting abilities intact?