nasdaq to use bitcoin technology

[cylonmaker2053]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

why don't you think exchanges won't build their own blockchains? i'd say it's a strong possibility. either that, or subsets of financial institutions forming collaborative, but still privately operated, chains. i'd also strongly assume that what we're doing here with Bitshares is fully on the Wall ST radar; these guys aren't idiots, money can buy a lot of brilliant minds.

good point re: the OTC assets...i can see that being a first step to apply the new tech.

[donkeypong]

I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

If NASDAQ invested, it would be kind of like that Overstock thing: they'd control it, or it would have to be oriented towards their needs. I'm sure we'd all be richer and glad the technology was going widespread, but it would be like a startup getting bought out by Google. 12 months later, the original folks would quit the new project, fork it and go out to (re-) build what they really wanted. Or they'd retire to the beach.

[Ander]

but a major financial institution could replicate our work quickly for < $1M dev budget, which is petty cash in that world.

No way they could do it nearly that cheap.

[clout]

These exchanges arent going to build there own block chain. They think that the technical limitations are that of bitcoin. Nasdaq has no clue that it can use a block chain for trade execution on the scale that they're accustomed. They are only looking at it for post trade services.

Also have you missed the memo on the compliance features that have been implemented in graphene. Exchange can remain fully compliant if they so choose. Nasdaq is also a huge proponent of open source and I don't think thats a deterrent. They wouldn't use this for their equities markets. Where this is most needed is in the standardization of OTC products that aren't currently exchange traded.

[cylonmaker2053]

We tried marketing bitusd. That didn't really work... There are a variety of alternatives to bitusd. The fact that it is collateralized by bts given the current market sentiment make it just as attractive as an IOU from an exchange or a ripple gateway.

The crypto community doesnt appreciate the bitshares consensus mechanism because they think its centralized. Exchanges don't care about the centralized vs decentralized debate. They only care about efficiency. We have the most efficient, robust and regulatory compliant block chain. Shouldn't we leverage that to gain partnerships?

Ripple is the second largest crypto by marketcap. That's not because the crypto community endorses them its because financial institutions endorse them. CME group has a minority stake in ripple. I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

true, if a major exchange wanted to invest that'd be awesome and there's no way i'd be opposed; i just think exchanges have incentive to dev their own versions of Bitshares. we're lucky to have a first mover advantage, but a major financial institution could replicate our work quickly for < $1M dev budget, which is petty cash in that world.

also, exchanges would def want to be closed systems for compliance reasons and would likely keep everything proprietary for competitive advantage. the USSA gov certainly isn't about to allow financial institutions to enable unbounded p2p trades and transfers, which is what joining BTS would mean. 

i also don't think bitUSD has come anywhere close to its potential; building businesses and apps around it could make it a huge success.

[clout]

We tried marketing bitusd. That didn't really work... There are a variety of alternatives to bitusd. The fact that it is collateralized by bts given the current market sentiment make it just as attractive as an IOU from an exchange or a ripple gateway.

The crypto community doesnt appreciate the bitshares consensus mechanism because they think its centralized. Exchanges don't care about the centralized vs decentralized debate. They only care about efficiency. We have the most efficient, robust and regulatory compliant block chain. Shouldn't we leverage that to gain partnerships?

Ripple is the second largest crypto by marketcap. That's not because the crypto community endorses them its because financial institutions endorse them. CME group has a minority stake in ripple. I see no reason why we cant get a major exchange like Nasdaq to invest

[cylonmaker2053]

@Akado The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry. There are myriad barriers to entry and partnerships with banks and exchanges are paramount. I really don't think any industry need the blockchain more than the exchange industry. We are already better than nasdaq by creating a product that consolidates the entire trade workflow but in order for thus to get off the ground we need to be registered as an ECN or MTF. We need to have connections with broker dealers. We need to have connections with market makers. In general we need to stop thinking crypto and start thinking industrial.

yeah, maybe sometime down the road. just successfully marketing bitUSD could make Bitshares the most heavily capitalized crypto. i'm all for keeping things simple and making that one market a massive success, then naturally branching out to fulfill some of the other potential Bitshares has to offer.

[clout]

@Akado The financial industry is the most heavily regulated industry. There are myriad barriers to entry and partnerships with banks and exchanges are paramount. I really don't think any industry need the blockchain more than the exchange industry. We are already better than nasdaq by creating a product that consolidates the entire trade workflow but in order for thus to get off the ground we need to be registered as an ECN or MTF. We need to have connections with broker dealers. We need to have connections with market makers. In general we need to stop thinking crypto and start thinking industrial.

[Akado]

Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

Yes this.  Make something better so that Nasdaq will NEED to partner with us.

I really think that's the sort of mentality we should have. Most want to partner with the big ones. However we should aim to be one of the big ones. To make BitShares be looked up to. To bring in and create new standards.

[Ander]

Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

Yes this.  Make something better so that Nasdaq will NEED to partner with us.

[Akado]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

 True. Also whoever wrote the article and Bloomberg probably dont have as good as an idea about bitcoin as most of us do because we have all been following it and involved so long.
I do agree. However based on what they said in the last dev hang out one can only hope the "big bank" that is taking notice of bitshares is "big" enough to bring it to Nasdaqs attention....one can only guess....exciting times wow

We don't need to rely on that bank to get public attention. Once 2.0 is delivered we will have a lot of hype and will hit most crypto magazines. Not to mention - assuming we get new annoucements - we will have more partners by then.

On top of that, with 2.0 working, those partners will be able to bring in new users and get the volume rolling.

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

You don't need a working implementation to pitch this to exchanges. We just don't have adequate connections.

True but it's better when you have a product that can speak for itself. Then people won't be so skeptical



Note:[/b Instead of wishing Nasdaq would partner up with us, we should aim at being better than Nasdaq  we don't need to limit ourselves. We have the potential to do even more and aim higher]

[bobmaloney]

I love how Nasdaq continues to get publicity from this regurgitated topic week after week  -  They've been riding this one since early May.

Hats off to them.

[clout]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

You don't need a working implementation to pitch this to exchanges. We just don't have adequate connections.

[Blazin8888]

We should do all of that once 2.0 is delivered. Only then can we prove what BitShares is worth so at the moment we kind of have our hands tied up.

This ^

Imagine Google attempting to sell a smart car to Ford without even a working prototype.  I don't think it would go over so well.  The best response you could hope for is "well, let us know when you get it working and then we can talk."  Once bitshares 2.0 is working in a live environment, then these major institutions may take notice, and it will probably take some time to iron out the initial bugs in 2.0 to really have a great product to demonstrate.

 True. Also whoever wrote the article and Bloomberg probably dont have as good as an idea about bitcoin as most of us do because we have all been following it and involved so long.
I do agree. However based on what they said in the last dev hang out one can only hope the "big bank" that is taking notice of bitshares is "big" enough to bring it to Nasdaqs attention....one can only guess....exciting times wow

[clout]

@Blazin8888 Nasdaq has partnered with Chain to use the Open Asset protocol on top of the bitcoin block chain.

I don't think they are making their own block chain. None of the other exchanges have done so and they haven't announced an incubator program for block chain teck like some banks. I think if they are using bitcoin they don't really understand the technology fully, but as I said early bitcoin get the job done for what they are currently trying to use it for.