Author Topic: What to do with Revenue?  (Read 5960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
For argument sake, if you could get paid in TradeBTC or Coinbase USD directly from the Bitshares reserve fund what would be wrong with that? At the same time if the Bitshares reserve fund could be used to invest in other DACs in the industry, giving Bitshares an advantage, what are the drawbacks from this? Yes there would be risks of black swans and of exchanges going down but done right and if the exchanges are regulated the risks might not be high.

If BTS goes down while BTC goes up, the reserve fund would stay stable if the reserve fund had BTC in it. If the reserve fund is only BTS, then whatever happens to BTS also happens to the reserve fund too. What if the reserve fund had all sorts of different value stores in it?

Then if BTC and the crypto economy go into a recession then the reserve fund would be resilient or even stable. Otherwise the reserve fund will not be much of a reserve if BTS is spiraling in price while some other asset is rising in price. The only way for the reserve fund to be optimal is if it doesn't depend exclusively on BTS or the crypto economy, but can hold all sorts of different stable commodities, assets, indexes or whatever.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit


BTS is the best option for the reserve asset because it is the only one that will exist always. Market Pegged Assets can have a black swan event and become worthless. User Issued Assets are even worse option because there is a counterparty risk.
You're thinking of it as if it's Bitshares 1.0. We have private BitAssets now, we have UIAs also, like TradeBTC, and in general people don't want to get paid in BTS because it's too volatile and is supposed to be volatile. People want to get paid in USD or even BTC, but not in BTS, so you will just pay people in BTS which they'll immediately cash out for fiat driving the price down.

The reserve also has to diversify for risk. You cannot diversify by holding stock in yourself, it makes no sense. Any programmer is going to think about it like it's one of those loops that are recursive, it will loop against itself, but just because you loop into yourself it doesn't change the overall structure. Basically it's making the network more fragile to have BTS backed by BTS.

BTS backed by an array of different assets is the only way to make the reserve fund function as it should. This would mean you'd accept the risk of a black swan along with the risk of someone not redeeming TradeBTC, along with the risk of someone not redeeming TradeETH, along with the risk of the UIAs not being redeemed, because the whole strategy is diversification of risk.

They aren't all going to fail at the same time, unless everyone colludes for the downfall of Bitshares. Whoever is offering TradeBTC, why shouldn't the reserve fund hold some TradeBTC from them and several others? When private assets get set up then there could be centralized exchanges like Coinbase offering CoinbaseBTC, or ShapeshiftBTC, or anything like that, so that Bitshares can hold BTC.

If Bitshares can hold BTC, it's far more stable as a store of value than holding BTS. If Bitshares holds a bit of BTC, ETH, Storj, Safecoin, Muse, Lottoshares, etc, then you have the most stable form of value you can get because then you have a diversified fund.

If we were talking about stocks everything I said would make sense but somehow when we talk about the cryptocurrency space people start to get irrational about it and think Bitshares is somehow different from every other stock. BTS is just like any other stock and you never want to have your whole portfolio as just one stock if you're managing a fund.

And people don't want to get paid in BTS either so even if you could somehow make some excuse for exclusively holding it, no one is going to want to get paid in it. I wouldn't want to get paid in BTS when I could get paid in BitUSD. I would accept the risk of the black swan because so far BitUSD under Bitshares 1.0 has held close enough to peg that it's more stable than Bitcoin was for the same time period.  If a composite asset representing the fund itself which held an array of underlying assets were created then you'd have a basket currency similar the special drawing rights of the IMF.


Traditional investing company is much more suitable for this kind of operation. It doesn't make any sense for a DAC to hire people to store cryptocurrencies (my understanding is that a blockchain cannot hold a secret, so it is impossible for it to hold private keys of other cryptos).

If we can't use the power of Bitshares 2.0 why create it? What traditional investment companies? You mean Goldman Sachs? But if we can do the same thing decentralized but better, what reason is there not to? If Bitshares can be a decentralized "investment" bank and exchange why shouldn't it? Private assets are a feature of Bitshares 2.0, as are gateways, and I don't see why we can have TradeBTC for use in the gateways but we can't use it in the reserve fund. If we can have a reserve fund, if we can have TradeBTC, then why can't we store private assets in the reserve fund?

And why we even should buy bitcoins and other cryptos? I'm invested in BTS because it is the best one right now. Diversifying to other cryptos would be unnecessary risk without much potential upside, it would make Bitshares less valuable.

Because it's the rational thing to do. It might not feel emotionally right to you but it's smart to own stakes in other crypto. How many of us only own stake in Bitshares and nothing else? If Bitshares 2.0 has the power to be a stakeholder in other DACs then it's a unique advantage and Bitshares 2.0 can be first mover on it. If Bitshares 2.0 wont do it then I'm sure the folks over at Ethereum will have no problem with the idea.

Why let Ethereum do something which Bitshares pioneered?

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
Is the revenue really burned or is it put to the reserve pool?

If I have understood this right, it should go to reserve pool, where it stays until it is used to pay for workers and witnesses. This means that DAC is saving money to make sure that it can pay for workers in the future.

BTS Is not money, BTS is stake. So putting it into the reserve pool as BTS is in my opinion both inefficient and also quite fatuous.

Instead it should be put into the reserve pool as BitUSD or some other basket of assets and commodities. It's effective for Bitshares to have in it's reserve pool Trade.BTC, Trade.Ether, and stakes in it's competition, as long as it can be guaranteed legally that upon a vote these stakes can be put to use.

It would allow the reserve pool to grow off of something other than BTS which isn't a currency, and also diversify it's holdings which is smarter from a business risk perspective. It's not really that smart for a company to exclusively hold stock in itself as a reserve because if they have to sell it then it dilutes it's own company.

BTS is the best option for the reserve asset because it is the only one that will exist always. Market Pegged Assets can have a black swan event and become worthless. User Issued Assets are even worse option because there is a counterparty risk.

Quote from: luckybit
It's smarter to diversify and invest in other DACs. Bitshares in theory should be able to hold BTC, Ether, Storj, or whatever else, as long as you set up the mechanisms to do it, and by doing it that way you can turn Bitshares 2.0 into an investment bank and exchange rather than just an exchange which makes a profit and then buys its shares back only to sell them later.

Recycling your own shares creates unnecessary volatility when you can use other networks shares. If Bitshares owned shares in other things, in other assets, then even if the BTS isn't gaining in value, if the Storjcoin or Safecoins are gaining in value then the reserve has more buying power for future investments in Bitshares. It would seem Bitshares is the only DAC capable of stuff like this which would mean first mover advantage.

I vote that we put forth a worker proposal to allow Bitshares to hold any digital asset in it's reserve. The reserve shouldn't just hold BitUSD, it should be able to hold Bitcoin or anything else. A group of people should be elected to manage the fund, and determine which assets to buy, and we could vote these people in, but they can only buy and not spend. Or we can just have a vote on what to buy and let the network automatically buy according to the percentage of votes it gets.

Traditional investing company is much more suitable for this kind of operation. It doesn't make any sense for a DAC to hire people to store cryptocurrencies (my understanding is that a blockchain cannot hold a secret, so it is impossible for it to hold private keys of other cryptos).

And why we even should buy bitcoins and other cryptos? I'm invested in BTS because it is the best one right now. Diversifying to other cryptos would be unnecessary risk without much potential upside, it would make Bitshares less valuable.

Offline fuzzy

There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Yes we should.

A decreasing supply due to burning, and thus a profitable dac, is the only thing that will make people care about bitshares. Until we are makign a profit everyone will just continue to shit all over this project.

But if we become profitable then everyone will be interested. Inflation and dilution nearly killed Bitshares and only running as a deflationary, profitable DAC is going to save it.

I honestly think we should be using those bts to be getting code built that incorporates bts in many common web utilities (like forums, blogs, social media...etc) and can be licensed out to partners who pay us or sharedrop on us. 

THIS is how you drive demand...and make a movement viral.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Yes we should.

A decreasing supply due to burning, and thus a profitable dac, is the only thing that will make people care about bitshares. Until we are makign a profit everyone will just continue to shit all over this project.

But if we become profitable then everyone will be interested. Inflation and dilution nearly killed Bitshares and only running as a deflationary, profitable DAC is going to save it.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

julian1

  • Guest
I agree with burning. Deflation indicates a profitable network and it's what helped drive Bitshares-X to an 80 million market-cap.

In stock-market terms it's equivalent to a share-buy back - a way the board can signal to the market their confidence in the company's direction.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
We don't need dividends. You pay dividends when you don't know how to reinvest profit. In start up there are too many places to reinvest profit. There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Of course there should be burning.  That's precisely what allows for the funding of worker proposals (i.e. reinvesting).  Without burning profits, worker proposals would cause continuous dilution until the reserve is depleted.  This is one reason why some people are against lowering fees.  Because that would mean less burning and therefore less reinvestment. 

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
We don't need dividends. You pay dividends when you don't know how to reinvest profit. In start up there are too many places to reinvest profit. There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

BTS isn't how you can store profit. You have to store profit in either BitUSD (or a more stable currency) or you invest in other projects. I would like to see Bitshares own stakes in Ethereum and have revenue be used to increase it's stake. I would like to see Bitshares own stake in Bitcoin as well.

Central exchanges routinely capture stakes in all sorts of altcoins, and in Bitcoin, simply by saving a portion of their fee profit. Bitshares could do more than that but isn't even doing that.

BitBTC and BitUSD isn't diversifying because you'd still be all in BTS. Diversifying would be holding TradeBTC, TradeETH, TradeLTC, because you wouldn't have to rely on the success of the Bitshares network at all to gain from the success of these other networks.

We don't need dividends. You pay dividends when you don't know how to reinvest profit. In start up there are too many places to reinvest profit. There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Bitshares needs to be profitable. If it's not profitable it's not going to attract people who want to hold BTS long term. Don't make the mistake of thinking the majority of the current community are being rational. Perhaps a rational person would just continue to stay in the stock market or somewhere of less risk unless the dividends exist.

You can get 5% and better dividends in the stock market, so if BTS doesn't offer some similar profit potential why would people gravitate to it? Some people might want to hold BTS and never even care about using the network, but it should still be valuable to have them because we need their liquidity. If there is burning then they lose less money, so they park their money longer, which means more liquidity.

To me it makes sense but I guess you have your own opinion.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:30:11 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

unreadPostsSinceLastVisit

  • Guest
We could put it towards a bounty for the creation of a tool that has the old blockchain built in, and takes any old bts 0.x.x backup wallet, and converts it into something graphene can easily understand.

Disclosure: I'm somebody who hasn't been able to migrate yet.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
We don't need dividends. You pay dividends when you don't know how to reinvest profit. In start up there are too many places to reinvest profit. There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Bitcoin got a lot of international exposure, publicity and free press for being the first crypto-currency which would have cost hundreds of millions if it was paid for. I think the first consistently profitable DAC is going to get a lot of exposure and recognition, the publicity, exposure and free press could be priceless, far in excess of the cost of the dividend/burning.

I also think it's been shown through the delegate system that a decentralised system is not very good yet at effective capital allocation. Besides core development, I can't think of a single initiative that has added value, but many that have lead to controversy and had a negative net effect on perception and price, because the decentralised allocation is not effectively managed. So while I agree burning/dividend payout is not the best use of profit for a most brick and mortar start-ups, I think it is fantastic for BTS.   
If you want to take the island burn the boats

clout

  • Guest
We don't need dividends. You pay dividends when you don't know how to reinvest profit. In start up there are too many places to reinvest profit. There shouldn't be a dividend payout or burning

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I agree that revenue should be stored as bitasset, preferably USD.

I think this could be a good idea.

Getting the BitAsset CAP up is positive. Being able to see revenue less expenses as USD would be more marketable.

Shareholders could possibly vote at the end of the year how much to burn as a dividend. (Perhaps by slowly buying BTS and burning it.) This should support the price because as the BTS CAP decreases the value of the dividend in % terms would increase. Haven't thought that through though.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 05:25:33 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
I wouldn't go with usd to be honest...But because many people will never agree in one asset diversification in many would be best

clout

  • Guest
I agree that revenue should be stored as bitasset, preferably USD.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
@luckybit  +5% +5% +5% as always!!

I also believe that the % ownership in the GUI is really important

I also believe that the BTS reserve should diversify and held should be put into the reserve pool as BitUSD or some other basket of assets and commodities. And it should be many assets bitbtc, bitusd, bitcny, bitgold, bitsilver

I wish someone actually starts listening here and do not ignore this community