Potential new member for BitShares Exchange Network, if only...

[nomoreheroes7]

Correct.  I'm not involved with Steem except as a future power user.  I've only shared what I'm working on with a few of our most trustworthy forum personalities (and my possibly fictitious secret sauce recipe guard dog, Duke), but they ain't talkin'.

Hmm...so is what you're working on something that can benefit BTS? Or a competitor?

[Stan]

Lol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me.

...and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement. 

In fairness to Stan, I think he has very little involvement with STEEM and is not an employee of Steemit. To the best of my knowledge, his primary role at Cryptonomex is still that of looking for opportunities for BitShares and graphene technology.

Correct.  I'm not involved with Steem except as a future power user.  I've only shared what I'm working on with a few of our most trustworthy forum personalities (and my possibly fictitious secret sauce recipe guard dog, Duke), but they ain't talkin'.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

What I find hard to digest is the fact that the founder of Bitshares doesn't have the ability to get the project done before getting bored and moving his attention somewhere else more interesting. 

That's because it's not a question of ability. He moved his attention somewhere else more profitable.

[dannotestein]

Lol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me.

...and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement. 

In fairness to Stan, I think he has very little involvement with STEEM and is not an employee of Steemit. To the best of my knowledge, his primary role at Cryptonomex is still that of looking for opportunities for BitShares and graphene technology.

[Chuckone]

What I find hard to digest is the fact that the founder of Bitshares doesn't have the ability to get the project done before getting bored and moving his attention somewhere else more interesting. 

Some may argue that the proof of concept has been done and a working product is online. Yep, that is true. But I didn't invest in a proof of concept, or a MVP. I invested in a potentially incredible project that needed to be worked on over a long period of time to unlock its true potential. A true leader would have made arrangements to make sure there is a capable successor to take over the leadership of the project. Even if it's decentralized, it still need a leader who inspires people to take action independently. I believe I've read this somewhere in the forum and it sums up really well what I think, but I feel like if BM was a kid and Bitshares was his toy and then he got bored of the toy and moved to another one more shiny and more interesting. The only issue here is that we're in a grown up world, with people who invested real money in the tech, and also in the team behind the tech. There's no accountability to shareholders, and I find it really disappointing.

Anyway, I know there are a lot of projects moving forward using the current tech as it is, and that is why I still keep a position in Bitshares in the hope at some point one of them will be sufficiently successful to increase transactions and smartcoins use. But nonetheless I have to say I'm very disappointed with the behavior of the development team, leaving to another project just when things were starting to move. I guess some major shareholders voting against any and all dilution projects may have had an influence, I don't know.

Before I was in Bitshares with high hopes of great things to come, now I'm clinging on my stake in the hope I'll be able to recuperate my initial investment. I don't know if that will ever happen.

[lil_jay890]

Lol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me.

...and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement. 

The chinese figured Stan out a long time ago... I believe the saying was "Stan is full of hot air".  Ever since I've been around bitshares, I've read Stan's pump posts and listened to his pump interview on the cryptofresh video.  Most stuff never came true and seemed like an attempt to garner buy support while the founders cashed out.

What the Larimers are doing seems be walking the fine line of legality.  They sold tons of shares in various investments and have abandoned most of them.  Now I know many will say "bitshares is a decentralized token and your money was a donation".  But I think a Lawyer would have a different opinion since I3 paraded around as the Board of bitshares.  They even called their office "Bitshares". 

Plus there is the fact that they sold their investments based on a promise of sharedrops.  They then go create a new investment based on the same technology and don't sharedrop.  Sounds pretty fraudulent to me.

[nomoreheroes7]

Lol whatever happened with this? Stan sounded so excited about it back in October, then it just kind of faded away. Feels like ever since STEEM came around all these huge possibilities for BitShares just went down the shitter. And why did Stan allude that the BTS market cap would "catch up to ETH this summer" not even three weeks prior to the STEEM announcement where the devs effectively put BTS on lockdown? I had naively assumed that all of Stan's rumblings of "something huge in the works", "just wait and see", et al actually meant that something HUGE was coming, but it seems that "secret sauce" was just STEEM all along. The whole series of events these past 2 months is completely bizarre to me.

...and I wish the forums here were active again. I've been here for nearly the past 2 years, and to see forum activity dwindle away to nothing hits right in the feels. And no, the steemit forums aren't a suitable replacement. 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.

This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.
Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?

KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...

Maybe for those two bridges, but in general there are several purposes for bridges, not just anonymity ... Lower counter party risk when trading across asset platforms; high performance trading; trading convenience; liquidity provider

Depends on the country you are dealing with.. but it's only at a certain amount of the transaction that KYC becomes a thing. If you haven't noticed.. metaexchange and shapeshift both have very low volume transaction support. In Canada for example, the need to have some kind of data starts at $3000.. after that the next threshold is $10k. So any transactions below this make KYC reporting unnecessary.

So technically if you provide a bridge service and keep your transactions all low volume like they do.. you would be ok.. at least for now. Regulations change and suddenly you can find yourself on the wrong end of the law if you are not ready to pivot and adapt.

Bridges make more practical sense than atomic cross chain stuff.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.

This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.
Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?

KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...

I only mention it because I'm reasonably sure that anybody accepting ACH deposits has to be KYC compliant. If this client might bring a lot of volume, it might be worth their effort to accommodate their needs.

[carpet ride]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.

This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.
Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?

KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...

Maybe for those two bridges, but in general there are several purposes for bridges, not just anonymity ... Lower counter party risk when trading across asset platforms; high performance trading; trading convenience; liquidity provider

[clout]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.

This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.
Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?

KYC defeats the purpose of metaexchange and shapeshift...

[karnal]

Most interesting....

Following this thread with enthusiasm!

[Akado]

Make it Gemini too, even though it might take a while..

https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3nu7gj/we_are_cameron_and_tyler_winklevoss_but_you/cvrd0x2

We've discussed internally Litecoin and we're definitely open to other cryptocurrencies. You'll notice that we didn't put the name 'bit' in our name on purpose – with that said, we're going to wait to an extent to see what the users are demanding and what people are asking for, rather than try to guess ourselves.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

Well, I imagine one of them would have to set up a different section of their site for ACH payments, that would work similarly to how their current services work, but would convert fiat from an ACH into bitUSD.

This would require customers using the service to meet KYC regulations, and setting that up would cost them money.
Perhaps a crowdfund would be necessary to motivate one of them to do this?

[lovejoy]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

Ahhh, intriguing.  A more platform agnostic approach, which could have serious merits... but navigating the legal labyrinth of interfacing with ACH, I can only imagine.  Care to elaborate on what you might mean by 'empower' in this instance?

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

maybe the trick here is to empower shapeshift and metaexchange to handle ACH deposits assigned to a certain bitUSD account name.

[clout]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

So what you're suggesting as a benefit to circle is that bitusd would potentially present less or no tax burden.  I'm completely out of my depth here but if bitusd was treated as a commodity, under a 2.0 scheme with a possible bitusd floor of $1.0 and a market driven premium of perhaps 1.01 - 1.15 there may yet exist slight capital gains opportunity for operators working with a large enough volume. 

Beyond the potential benefits of bitusd from a tax standpoint, what other advantages to circle, or a similar entity, exist in using bitshares 2.0 as opposed to bitcoin / USD?   What's the sweet deal we have to offer our as of yet unidentified ACH processor partner?  There has to be one or we're not going to get the partnership, especially not if we seem like we're going to thank them and then eat their lunch.

There is no capital gain if bitusd is bought and sold at face value (with a spread). For example, the reason why the bitcny market works very well is that btc38 (facilitated by transwiser) accepts bitcny at facevalue. To that end yunbi also has a cny/bitcny market where bitcny is bought and sold at face value less the marginal spread of 0.2-4%. Bitassets are not commodities they are fixed income financial products. Even if there is a capital gain, it is negligible. That doesn't mean you don't owe the government tax dollars it just means its easier to account for.

The real benefit for a company like Circle is that it is trying to appeal to millennials that want alternatives to the current banking options. Bitusd presents a viable alternative where bitcoin does not because of its volatility. The whole point of bitusd, regardless of integration with a major partner like Circle, is that it provides all the advantages of a cryptocurrency without the drawbacks that bitcoin presents (mainly price volatility and speed of payment settlement).

I'm not saying that Circle will partner with bitshares, but if they were more forward thinking and less enamored with bitcoin they would. The only drawback is that there is no regulatory guidance on cryptocurrency derivatives, which presents legal risks that they have not fully investigated.

[fuzzy]

I would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.

Recommend against what?

It depends on where you live really.. but treating bitUSD without tax implications is what I meant. I don't recommend it. Consider the very real possibility that when/if a tax regulation gets set down in bitUSD that they back date it to when bitUSD was created for where you live. Sure it is not easy for them to find out just how much you have/had.. but either way you are not going to enjoy the auditing. It is often easier in situations where regulations don't exist to operate as though they do. In some rare cases.. it spares real regulation coming down.

Though you are probably correct...the implications of that fact sucks.  This is my question:  "How do we not have to worry about all this regulation destroying us like we are criminals when we are in fact not anything close?"

As I've been learning about tax law, the more I learn the more I realize just how rigged it is.  I mean we are supposed to consider EVERYTHING a taxable event.  When in question, pretend its taxed!
Then also account for it as such until your mind is so bogged down by trying to reach a level of "total compliance" that you have no energy to even thinks straight anymore. 

Sigh...depressing if you ask me.   

[Pheonike]

How about Simple Bank. They are online only. 

https://www.simple.com/

[luckybit]

The touch point when it comes to ACH is the delay.

ACH is cheaper because its slower.

It's like attaching a Lamborghini Huracán to a horse and buggy. You can all figure out which one in my analogy is the Huracán.

The 'good news' is that only recently (like a few months ago) they have moved to some transactions being processed 'same day'. Still a bit of a contrast to our 1 second block time.

There are two elements to this.. you need an ODFI and an Operator.

What you want 'ideally' so we can wack the buggy, set the horse free, and put a Lamborghini Veneno along side the Huracán is to have the ODFI and Operator to be one and the same... because ultimately its the clearing house that will determine the speed it gets to the RDFI.

Currently there are only a few Operators used by everyone and thus impacts the timing.

This is going to put the ODFI/Operator to the the BitShares network in a liability position that needs to be handled correctly, not just for compliance, but for security. Keep in mind when the banks mess up, they just need to make some phone calls to whom ever was on the other end and reverse the mistake. In interfacing with BitShares though.. that's not an option.. and that creates a significantly higher risk profile. Which is why so many of the current solutions work with mega delay. HOWEVER... we are anticipating a solution that could be engineered to minimize this liability thanks in part to some 2.0 features coupled with a little more engineering on our part. We cannot confirm any of this of course until we got 2.0.

You also have to consider the costs. It will double up on the transaction charges since there will be BitShares charging and then the ACH processing.

Not saying it can't be done or it will be too expensive.. just depends what degree of service will be expected and how much it will take to deliver on it.

I only know all this because of the work we are doing in regards to what BunkerDEX is offering and our Rewards and another yet announced product.

I am not saying that we have the final solution 'now'... but I am working on it. There are some creative ways this can be accomplished.

This will be necessary in the mean time until we can close the loop (ie. all transactions in the DEX).

FYI ACH includes US, it's territories, and Canada.

I am sure you got lots of peeps to talk with now Stan... but I would be happy to help out however I can if the need arises.

@Shentist - Yes.. ACH is US own inter-bank transfer system.. while most of the rest of the world uses SWIFT. Kinda like how we all use metric and US still uses imperial Canadian banks use SWIFT also.. so Canada is uniquely positioned to be able to talk to both networks and provide BitShares on/off ramp for both... and nuclear bunker hardened security to boot if we have anything to do with it.

Oh and Holy Shanaynay this is awesome!

Exchange for Citicoin?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/07/citibank-is-working-on-its-own-digital-currency-citicoin/

[lovejoy]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

So what you're suggesting as a benefit to circle is that bitusd would potentially present less or no tax burden.  I'm completely out of my depth here but if bitusd was treated as a commodity, under a 2.0 scheme with a possible bitusd floor of $1.0 and a market driven premium of perhaps 1.01 - 1.15 there may yet exist slight capital gains opportunity for operators working with a large enough volume. 

Beyond the potential benefits of bitusd from a tax standpoint, what other advantages to circle, or a similar entity, exist in using bitshares 2.0 as opposed to bitcoin / USD?   What's the sweet deal we have to offer our as of yet unidentified ACH processor partner?  There has to be one or we're not going to get the partnership, especially not if we seem like we're going to thank them and then eat their lunch.

[Pheonike]

Maybe checkout some payday lenders. 

[Murderistic]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

That is essentially what Max and I have been trying to do for the last two years, along with Stan, Dan, & a few other people we've been working on relationships and development.

 This is pretty much coming to a head, because this last option is all we need. It won't be the prettiest to start with but with a partner like this we can get it done.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.

Recommend against what?

It depends on where you live really.. but treating bitUSD without tax implications is what I meant. I don't recommend it. Consider the very real possibility that when/if a tax regulation gets set down in bitUSD that they back date it to when bitUSD was created for where you live. Sure it is not easy for them to find out just how much you have/had.. but either way you are not going to enjoy the auditing. It is often easier in situations where regulations don't exist to operate as though they do. In some rare cases.. it spares real regulation coming down.

[clout]

I would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.

Recommend against what?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

What do you mean by the bold part? Why would you want that?

I mean that if you want to go from bitusd to usd you there are no tax implications, if you go from bitcoin to usd there are. the former is more convenient than the latter.

I would recommend against that.. but regardless it makes a point for why you don't want to have such processing associated with bitcoin. Most of the suggestions here have been to use bitcoin 3rd parties that are doing what I am developing for bitshares atm.. and what CCEDK will be doing also for the euro market. Maybe someone else is working on something though.

[clout]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

What do you mean by the bold part? Why would you want that?

I mean that if you want to go from bitusd to usd you there are no tax implications, if you go from bitcoin to usd there are. the former is more convenient than the latter.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

What do you mean by the bold part? Why would you want that?

[clout]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Circle is doing everything they can to make a gateway for bitcoin (cryptocurrencies) and have people using bitcoin (crypto currencies) without them realizing that they are. They have in the past year created the best gateway for that purpose. Aside from the speed of Bitcoin transactions the real problem that they have in garnering more adoption is that bitcoin is a commodity. So even though Circle now has USD accounts, when a user sells bitcoin for usd they are supposed to keep track of and report any gains or losses. Using bitusd would allow for the user to use cryptocurrencies without worrying about reporting requirements. Also bitassest markets are privatized, so not only can they control the market and but also accrue revenue from trading fees.

[lovejoy]

stay on topic.

[tonyk]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Are you trying to point out that a free road trip won't suffice in this case?

... and what is a better pitch than a free road trip?

[lovejoy]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

Humor me here, what would a pitch to circle look like? What would be their incentive (in the grand scheme of things?)  I'm genuinely curious.

Founded in 2013 by serial Internet entrepreneurs Jeremy Allaire and Sean Neville, Circle is backed by $76 million in venture capital investment from Goldman Sachs, IDG Capital Partners, Breyer Capital, Accel Partners, General Catalyst Partners, Oak Investment Partners, Fenway Summer, Digital Currency Group, and Pantera Capital.

[puppies]

Hey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked stand to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problem

Probably best to ask for yourself, but i have personally always liked the open conversation.  It gives us an idea of where we are that they are so open about it. 

And as for finding answers, it was worth it to check...you never know when an untapped resource may be found.

Ten years ago my long time girlfriend ran payroll at a temp agency.   They were a small family owned business, and they did payroll not only for themselves, but also for a lot of the small businesses in the area. 

Sadly you're ten years late.  We've lost touch, and she lives two states away.

I think posting asking for options was a great idea.  There is a chance that someone is in the situation I was in ten years ago.

[fuzzy]

Hey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked stand to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problem

Probably best to ask for yourself, but i have personally always liked the open conversation.  It gives us an idea of where we are that they are so open about it. 

And as for finding answers, it was worth it to check...you never know when an untapped resource may be found.

[tonyk]

Hey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked stand to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problem

And more importantly did anyone came with something that can work?

[clout]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

I agree Circle is the best option. There withdrawal limits are $3000 weekly for bank accounts and they don't charge transaction fees, although an ACH fee is really only about $0.15.

[Murderistic]

Hey guys I want to go ahead and take the heat for this one, I personally asked Stan to post in the forum to see if we could get anybody that has some additional connections I did not have, or additional ideas I could not come up with on how to solve this problem.

[Ben Mason]

How about keep things quiet and not start more speculative bullshit. If it actually happens then talk.

OR this thread was designed to pump BTS

Working on developments and having an open discourse, despite the ill informed trolling and occasional attempts to manipulate the stupid, is one of this community's greatest strengths. Please try to join in constructively or just come back in 3-5 yrs once things are less interesting and more stable.

[Stan]

We have always used this forum as a resource for brainstorming solutions.

My previous post was packed full of raw ideas that I hope the folks here will chew on and embellish.

We have an unbelievable number of entrepreneurs in this community and several have already contacted me with ideas they are working on.   Clearly, the one who adds this particular capability to the BitShares Exchange Network stands to profit and benefit us all.

It's an entrepreneurial opportunity to start your own business.  We have shared it for all to consider.

Let the race to develop the best solution go on!
That's what this community does. 

[onceuponatime]

How about keep things quiet and not start more speculative bullshit. If it actually happens then talk.

OR this thread was designed to pump BTS

Stan appears to be gathering ideas. Are you down on ideas?

[hamiltino]

How about keep things quiet and not start more speculative bullshit. If it actually happens then talk.

OR this thread was designed to pump BTS

[Stan]

couldn't this be done via privatized bitassets? they would create their own btiUSD

I was thinking the same, thier own usd pegged asset.

Fyi they deal in 60 countries and need to settle in more than one currency.

As for chicken and the egg, I didnt consider that problem, though my thought on it is they wouldnt need to immediately put 500 mil into bitusd, but would sort of put it in as they go every month. They would have as much exposure then, right?

You folks are much smarter than I am, thanks for your perspective.

And presumably much of the payment flow will come back out of the pipeline and into fiat every month, so this is mostly going to generate nice liquidity for bitAssets.  That means there probably only needs to be steady-state about $50M worth of bitUSD in the pipeline.  Acquiring a "mere" $1M worth of BTS while its cheap might be all it takes to prime this particular payment pipeline so that could translate into a cost of money in the neighborhood of $50K, easily recovered from the gains in value of the initial BTS purchase caused by the sustained demand it would contribute.

Not to mention that having their own asset with this much liquidity would make it the go-to currency for many others.  Suddenly they have a new revenue stream as a byproduct. There's also the referral fees from their huge number of new users who, having BitAssets in their paychecks will become good candidates using other services, like selling BitShares Bonds that earn more than any bank currently pays.  That could mean several more revenue streams.  This payment system could quickly pay for itself and even turn a profit - always a good business proposition.

Essentially, there is huge energy in the flow of this much money that can be harnessed to make all kinds of other revenue generation models viable.

I haven't spent any time on refining these numbers, but I'm sure someone will. 

[Murderistic]

couldn't this be done via privatized bitassets? they would create their own btiUSD

I was thinking the same, their own usd pegged asset.

Fyi they deal in 60 countries and need to settle in more than one currency.

As for chicken and the egg, I didn't consider that problem, though my thought on it is they wouldn't need to immediately put 500 mil into bitusd, but would sort of put it in as they go every month. They would have as much exposure then, right?

You folks are much smarter than I am, thanks for your perspective.

[Akado]

couldn't this be done via privatized bitassets? they would create their own btiUSD

[jsidhu]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.

I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.

Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative.

The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.

No sane business of decent size would do that

Actually it seems quite common. While they say it was not their intention to convert their investors to clients, it looks like some of the investors in new payroll startup,  ZenPayroll, switched the payroll of their companies over...

"Right now we have a very strong focus on small businesses, and sub-100 person companies," Reeves says. "We did not take these investors to convert them to clients, it's about getting a chance to talk to these people who have been in our shoes."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/practically-every-notable-founder-in-silicon-valley-just-invested-in-this-startup-2014-11?r=US&IR=T

Interesting...
what are the risks and rewards of having those investors become clients?

[Empirical1.2]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.

I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.

Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative.

The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.

No sane business of decent size would do that

Actually it seems quite common. While they say it was not their intention to convert their investors to clients, it looks like some of the investors in new payroll startup,  ZenPayroll, switched the payroll of their companies over...

"Right now we have a very strong focus on small businesses, and sub-100 person companies," Reeves says. "We did not take these investors to convert them to clients, it's about getting a chance to talk to these people who have been in our shoes."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/practically-every-notable-founder-in-silicon-valley-just-invested-in-this-startup-2014-11?r=US&IR=T

[Stan]

The touch point when it comes to ACH is the delay.

ACH is cheaper because its slower.

It's like attaching a Lamborghini Huracán to a horse and buggy. You can all figure out which one in my analogy is the Huracán.

The 'good news' is that only recently (like a few months ago) they have moved to some transactions being processed 'same day'. Still a bit of a contrast to our 1 second block time.

There are two elements to this.. you need an ODFI and an Operator.

What you want 'ideally' so we can wack the buggy, set the horse free, and put a Lamborghini Veneno along side the Huracán is to have the ODFI and Operator to be one and the same... because ultimately its the clearing house that will determine the speed it gets to the RDFI.

Currently there are only a few Operators used by everyone and thus impacts the timing.

This is going to put the ODFI/Operator to the the BitShares network in a liability position that needs to be handled correctly, not just for compliance, but for security. Keep in mind when the banks mess up, they just need to make some phone calls to whom ever was on the other end and reverse the mistake. In interfacing with BitShares though.. that's not an option.. and that creates a significantly higher risk profile. Which is why so many of the current solutions work with mega delay. HOWEVER... we are anticipating a solution that could be engineered to minimize this liability thanks in part to some 2.0 features coupled with a little more engineering on our part. We cannot confirm any of this of course until we got 2.0.

You also have to consider the costs. It will double up on the transaction charges since there will be BitShares charging and then the ACH processing.

Not saying it can't be done or it will be too expensive.. just depends what degree of service will be expected and how much it will take to deliver on it.

I only know all this because of the work we are doing in regards to what BunkerDEX is offering and our Rewards and another yet announced product.

I am not saying that we have the final solution 'now'... but I am working on it. There are some creative ways this can be accomplished.

This will be necessary in the mean time until we can close the loop (ie. all transactions in the DEX).

FYI ACH includes US, it's territories, and Canada.

I am sure you got lots of peeps to talk with now Stan... but I would be happy to help out however I can if the need arises.

@Shentist - Yes.. ACH is US own inter-bank transfer system.. while most of the rest of the world uses SWIFT. Kinda like how we all use metric and US still uses imperial Canadian banks use SWIFT also.. so Canada is uniquely positioned to be able to talk to both networks and provide BitShares on/off ramp for both... and nuclear bunker hardened security to boot if we have anything to do with it.

Oh and Holy Shanaynay this is awesome!

This is very helpful data, Data!  "The need has arisen!"

The first entrepreneur who figures out a practical way to facilitate this half billion worth of business will be rich, popular, and good looking!

(Well, two out of three ain't bad...)

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.

Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...

This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.

Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.

Egg and chicken question ?
If bitshares  doesn't have 500 million + * 2 market cap , it can't provide 500 million bitusd .
If bitshares doesn't  have 500 million bitusd , it can't have 500 million + *2 market cap .

Its not a chicken and egg problem.

If This partner was to have demand for 500M in bitusd, then they would be buying bts like crazy and cause the price to become high enough to support that much bitusd.

It IS a chicken and egg problem.. you would be asking this partner to lockup $1B real dollars to collateralize the bitUSD market. The peg at that point would move to fractions of a % I think.. and for the partner.. thats a HUGE chuck of capital that effectively in lost opportunity depending on how you look at it. From their perspective it would be... they will seek out cheaper alternatives in a heartbeat if that was required of them.

Unless we can get enough people in the market to move in and do the collateral for the market at that level.. I think they will likely end up going private smartcoin.

[jsidhu]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.

I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.

Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative.

The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.

No sane business of decent size would do that

[emailtooaj]

I would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.

The fact that the father of Bitshares ponders this and supposed partners haven't, says a lot into something. I'll let you decide what.

Hmm. Didn't realize donkeypong became our new father.  If that's the case, hey donkeypong can I have $20 please!!!!

[Ander]

I'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.

Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...

This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.

Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.

Egg and chicken question ?
If bitshares  doesn't have 500 million + * 2 market cap , it can't provide 500 million bitusd .
If bitshares doesn't  have 500 million bitusd , it can't have 500 million + *2 market cap .

Its not a chicken and egg problem.

If This partner was to have demand for 500M in bitusd, then they would be buying bts like crazy and cause the price to become high enough to support that much bitusd.

[Empirical1.2]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.

I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.

Even if it's not their core business, but they have an understanding of the space, I think the high probability that BTS gains 2000%+ would make the opportunity lucrative.

The referral programme could also come into play? It could offset payroll costs and even make it profitable while still being better & cheaper for employees than their current system.

[Akado]

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

Stripe supports bitcoin and ACH
http://www.totalpayments.org/2014/03/31/stripe-now-supports-bitcoin-ach/

Knox Payments too
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/changetip-enables-bitcoin-transactions-via-ach/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/vogogo-secures-partnership-knox-payments/

Stripe would be awesome, my only problem is all those companies might be too Bitcoin-centric and dismiss the rest, but Stripe would be awesome indeed. The best option would be to consult with CCEDK and Identabit first, they probably have more contacts and knowledge on that area.

[NewMine]

I would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.

The fact that the father of Bitshares ponders this and supposed partners haven't, says a lot into something. I'll let you decide what.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

The touch point when it comes to ACH is the delay.

ACH is cheaper because its slower.

It's like attaching a Lamborghini Huracán to a horse and buggy. You can all figure out which one in my analogy is the Huracán.

The 'good news' is that only recently (like a few months ago) they have moved to some transactions being processed 'same day'. Still a bit of a contrast to our 1 second block time.

There are two elements to this.. you need an ODFI and an Operator.

What you want 'ideally' so we can wack the buggy, set the horse free, and put a Lamborghini Veneno along side the Huracán is to have the ODFI and Operator to be one and the same... because ultimately its the clearing house that will determine the speed it gets to the RDFI.

Currently there are only a few Operators used by everyone and thus impacts the timing.

This is going to put the ODFI/Operator to the the BitShares network in a liability position that needs to be handled correctly, not just for compliance, but for security. Keep in mind when the banks mess up, they just need to make some phone calls to whom ever was on the other end and reverse the mistake. In interfacing with BitShares though.. that's not an option.. and that creates a significantly higher risk profile. Which is why so many of the current solutions work with mega delay. HOWEVER... we are anticipating a solution that could be engineered to minimize this liability thanks in part to some 2.0 features coupled with a little more engineering on our part. We cannot confirm any of this of course until we got 2.0.

You also have to consider the costs. It will double up on the transaction charges since there will be BitShares charging and then the ACH processing.

Not saying it can't be done or it will be too expensive.. just depends what degree of service will be expected and how much it will take to deliver on it.

I only know all this because of the work we are doing in regards to what BunkerDEX is offering and our Rewards and another yet announced product.

I am not saying that we have the final solution 'now'... but I am working on it. There are some creative ways this can be accomplished.

This will be necessary in the mean time until we can close the loop (ie. all transactions in the DEX).

FYI ACH includes US, it's territories, and Canada.

I am sure you got lots of peeps to talk with now Stan... but I would be happy to help out however I can if the need arises.

@Shentist - Yes.. ACH is US own inter-bank transfer system.. while most of the rest of the world uses SWIFT. Kinda like how we all use metric and US still uses imperial Canadian banks use SWIFT also.. so Canada is uniquely positioned to be able to talk to both networks and provide BitShares on/off ramp for both... and nuclear bunker hardened security to boot if we have anything to do with it.

Oh and Holy Shanaynay this is awesome!

[Shentist]

Do i understand it correct it is the same like SWIFT in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Clearing_House

https://www.nacha.org/ach-network

so the question is, which already existing partner of ACH do you take into our system?

https://www.theclearinghouse.org/payments/ach

so, we are looking for a partner, who does ACH transfers?

[donkeypong]

I would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

If im reading this correctly, I'm not quite sure the OP question is clear enough for a specific answer imo.  Are we looking to find a new payroll processor that will accept bit assets from the company and then that processor splits out the payroll to Individual employees who wants to get paid via ach, bit assets or a combo of each?
Or are we in search of a bank that'll be willing to integrate directly to BTS as a checking and savings off ramp?

Is it a bank we're in search of? Who owns the ACH system? Who do banks talk to when they want to plug into it? Is there a special API you have to pay for? would Bitshares have to integrate the option for identity verification?

[emailtooaj]

If im reading this correctly, I'm not quite sure the OP question is clear enough for a specific answer imo.  Are we looking to find a new payroll processor that will accept bit assets from the company and then that processor splits out the payroll to Individual employees who wants to get paid via ach, bit assets or a combo of each?
Or are we in search of a bank that'll be willing to integrate directly to BTS as a checking and savings off ramp?

[jsidhu]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

So they would be a bts holder even if thats not their core business? Doesnt make business sense unless they are a startup looking for bleeding edge risk and tech to integrate. I dont think that is the case.

I wonder if this is a partner looking to invest in bts in that case or if its a standalone company with its own core business intact and profitable.

[btswildpig]

I'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.

Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...

This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.

Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.

Egg and chicken question ?
If bitshares  doesn't have 500 million + * 2 market cap , it can't provide 500 million bitusd .
If bitshares doesn't  have 500 million bitusd , it can't have 500 million + *2 market cap . 

[Empirical1.2]

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency..

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

What do you think $40 million a month in BitAsset demand would do to the price of BTS? That's lucrative.

[Stan]

hmm One would think Identabit has already solved that 'problem'...

Which is it - they have not or they do not share with you guys?

Spent an hour talking with John tonight. 
We have many resources to consult and we are consulting them all.

[jsidhu]

This is great...

I have a question..

What does the employer get out of this? I mean you must have pitched a way to save money increase efficiency.. However they now would have to provide a ccedk card to all employees right? They would also probably need to pay a cut to the ach service provider? One that may be more expensive than the one they are using today? So factoring this in,  they save money? Or what was the pitch?

Im wondering cause if we know we can bring forth the same arguments to any employer and have good success at conversion.

Because its new tech and certainly not the easiest to understand im curious as to how a big company overcame the burden of technical complexity and fear of new technology by having been provided with what they will benefit from using the technology... Must have been something very lucrative to them to jump in.

[carpet ride]

Can we at least have a "holy explicative deleted" from someone?

Holy shit.

...But I'll save the bubbly for post contract & announcement.  Best of luck!

Holy crap.  This is has huge potential....

[DMo09]

Can we at least have a "holy explicative deleted" from someone?

Holy shit.

...But I'll save the bubbly for post contract & announcement.  Best of luck!

[tonyk]

We've been talking with a potential partner who has only one more requirement the BitShares Exchange Network currently doesn't meet:

What we need is the ability to deposit bitAssets like BitUSD or BitEUR from a wallet account directly into a checking or savings account at a bank through an ACH option.

Automated Clearing House (ACH) is an electronic network for financial transactions in the United States. ACH processes large volumes of credit and debit transactions in batches. ACH credit transfers include direct deposit, payroll and vendor payments.  When you get direct deposit, it is an ACH deposit

What we need is we need to find some type of service or bridge that can bridge the two. 

As an example: an employer has a million employees and wants to switch their entire payroll system to using our assets. That would mean that employer would need to take currency and load it into their account and then distributed to all of their employees. Then their employees would have the option to deposit it directly into their regular bank checking account, or keep it in their wallet and be able to swipe a card at a point of sale. CCEDK has the card in point of sale deal worked out in regards to integrating with the wallet, but we need to have an ACH deposit option.

If we can get this worked out as soon as possible then BitShares has a very good chance of landing an extremely large client right now. We've already had the talks and they've already agreed as long as we can provide that option.

They are currently using check, direct deposit, and loaded prepaid cards but they want to outsource that to other network partners and do everything in BitAssets.

We could use some research leads on who in the world is a good choice provide ACH deposit off-ramp services to the entire BitShares Exchange Network.

This is not a Summer Announcement, but I do feel a slight Disturbance in the Force.

hmm One would think Identabit has already solved that 'problem'...

Which is it - they have not or they do not share with you guys?

[lil_jay890]

We've been talking with a potential partner who has only one more requirement the BitShares Exchange Network currently doesn't meet:

What we need is the ability to deposit bitAssets like BitUSD or BitEUR from a wallet account directly into a checking or savings account at a bank through an ACH option.

Automated Clearing House (ACH) is an electronic network for financial transactions in the United States. ACH processes large volumes of credit and debit transactions in batches. ACH credit transfers include direct deposit, payroll and vendor payments.  When you get direct deposit, it is an ACH deposit

What we need is we need to find some type of service or bridge that can bridge the two. 

As an example: an employer has a million employees and wants to switch their entire payroll system to using our assets. That would mean that employer would need to take currency and load it into their account and then distributed to all of their employees. Then their employees would have the option to deposit it directly into their regular bank checking account, or keep it in their wallet and be able to swipe a card at a point of sale. CCEDK has the card in point of sale deal worked out in regards to integrating with the wallet, but we need to have an ACH deposit option.

If we can get this worked out as soon as possible then BitShares has a very good chance of landing an extremely large client right now. We've already had the talks and they've already agreed as long as we can provide that option.

They are currently using check, direct deposit, and loaded prepaid cards but they want to outsource that to other network partners and do everything in BitAssets.

We could use some research leads on who in the world is a good choice provide ACH deposit off-ramp services to the entire BitShares Exchange Network.

This is not a Summer Announcement, but I do feel a slight Disturbance in the Force.

Obvious answers that were probably already considered... coinbase, circle, itbit maybe paypal.  Circle would be the best since they are now allowed to hold USD.

[Stan]

Can we at least have a "holy explicative deleted" from someone?

[Murderistic]

I'm working hard on this deal people, we are talking over 500+ million in yearly funds being moved.

Imagine if it is all bitUSD they were using...

This is the one gamechanger we need. They said yes, provided this option can be made to happen.

Let's do this together and share the reward...before Dublin, when we walk in with the ink dry on it.

[Stan]

We've been talking with a potential partner who has only one more requirement the BitShares Exchange Network currently doesn't meet:

What we need is the ability to deposit bitAssets like BitUSD or BitEUR from a wallet account directly into a checking or savings account at a bank through an ACH option.

Automated Clearing House (ACH) is an electronic network for financial transactions in the United States. ACH processes large volumes of credit and debit transactions in batches. ACH credit transfers include direct deposit, payroll and vendor payments.  When you get direct deposit, it is an ACH deposit

What we need is we need to find some type of service or bridge that can bridge the two. 

As an example: an employer has a million employees and wants to switch their entire payroll system to using our assets. That would mean that employer would need to take currency and load it into their account and then distributed to all of their employees. Then their employees would have the option to deposit it directly into their regular bank checking account, or keep it in their wallet and be able to swipe a card at a point of sale. CCEDK has the card in point of sale deal worked out in regards to integrating with the wallet, but we need to have an ACH deposit option.

If we can get this worked out as soon as possible then BitShares has a very good chance of landing an extremely large client right now. We've already had the talks and they've already agreed as long as we can provide that option.

They are currently using check, direct deposit, and loaded prepaid cards but they want to outsource that to other network partners and do everything in BitAssets.

We could use some research leads on who in the world is a good choice provide ACH deposit off-ramp services to the entire BitShares Exchange Network.

This is not a Summer Announcement, but I do feel a slight Disturbance in the Force.