Important questions from the business perspective

[merivercap]

BitCash -
1)  We’re planning to have a beta for a mobile payment wallet web-app out at the beginning of the new year.  People  will be able to sign up using their native web browser on either iPhone or Android. 

That's excellent news.
Is the mobile app going to be native or JavaScript-based?

Javascript.  Performance for webapps is really good these days. 

[Xeldal]

***************************************************************

(2) This is what we currently know about SmartCoins being valued at parity:

Can we adjust the settlement price to artificially lower the SmartCoins' value so that it's close to parity?

I am not apposed to a policy of adjusting the force settlement price such that the average of all trades in a given day occur at around $1.00.  This would have to be a very slowly adjusted parameter (long term moving average of the premium).   
It would produce a currency that has the guarantee that on average it can be sold for $1.00. Perhaps this is an opportunity to create a new asset called BUX that implements this policy.  Changing the policy on USD without sufficient warning could be detrimental.

Could we know more about this? This is very important from the business perspective (as it requires different marketing strategy for SmartCoins depending if they're valued at par or above par).

I would like to see more discussion about this.  It was brought up 7 months ago and again more recently.  I think there's great advantages to doing it.  I'm not aware of anyone who's actually against it.  The problem of course is the market is currently under the assumption of a settlement at 100% and expect a certain premium.   Changing it now would steal from all those who were trading under the current rules.   Is there an agreeable way to transition into a variable settlement offset based on a long term moving average minus the premium?

If a transition is possible.  How long should it be?
If the market were given some # of months notice, and then some # of months slow transition.
Or what should a transition look like?

There is of course the option of private SmartAssets like TCNY or the suggested BUX and I'm sure we will see more of these anyways but If it makes sense to offset the settlement price such that trades tend toward 1:1, and I believe it does;  As well, if it can be transitioned in a way as to minimize damage.  I think it should be pursued.

What are the arguments against this? 

[jakub]

BitCash -
1)  We’re planning to have a beta for a mobile payment wallet web-app out at the beginning of the new year.  People  will be able to sign up using their native web browser on either iPhone or Android. 

That's excellent news.
Is the mobile app going to be native or JavaScript-based?

[cass]

@ElMato - could u please give a short update on the limewallet project? thanks in advance

[merivercap]

BitCash -

1)  We’re planning to have a beta for a mobile payment wallet web-app out at the beginning of the new year.  People  will be able to sign up using their native web browser on either iPhone or Android. 

2) We're planning a Privatized Smartcoin with no permanent premium. 

[abit]

Good points. Bump.

[jakub]

(1) This is what we currently know about mobile development:

What's going on with LimeWallet?

i've talked with matias and pablo .. it will ported to 2.0, but this needs time !

Is it possible to deploy BitShares GUI on Android & iPhone?

Yes

Does anyone have any more detailed information?
We all remember the Moonstone case - they invested massively in their alternative GUI development and their plans got unexpectedly derailed by the 2.0 announcement.
It would be a good thing to avoid such surprises in the future. So could we know more about CNX plans in this area?

***************************************************************

(2) This is what we currently know about SmartCoins being valued at parity:

Can we adjust the settlement price to artificially lower the SmartCoins' value so that it's close to parity?

I am not apposed to a policy of adjusting the force settlement price such that the average of all trades in a given day occur at around $1.00.  This would have to be a very slowly adjusted parameter (long term moving average of the premium).   
It would produce a currency that has the guarantee that on average it can be sold for $1.00. Perhaps this is an opportunity to create a new asset called BUX that implements this policy.  Changing the policy on USD without sufficient warning could be detrimental.

Could we know more about this? This is very important from the business perspective (as it requires different marketing strategy for SmartCoins depending if they're valued at par or above par).
Are we aiming to have SmartCoins defined similarly to roadscape's proposal?

The floor could be lower... for example, if the floor is set to $0.97, then the worst case scenario is that it's still competitive w/ PayPal. If the average premium is around 3%, it means USD will float right around $1.00.
So don't guarantee $1.00 .. instead, offer $1.00 on average, but guarantee that one can ALWAYS get 97% of face value.

***************************************************************

(3) This is what we currently know about the possibility of introducing a transfer fee threshold related to the BTS value being transferred:

Actually this question never got answered (please let me know if it was) though it has been proposed on several occasions, e.g.:

a transaction with value <= 1000 BTS you have to pay say 5 BTS
if it is higher the normal transaction transfer fee will be applied

Is it a plausible solution for SmartCoins and some UIAs (i.e for those assets which are actively traded so that their value can be determined at any point in time)?
I think it's a crucial issue as this way we could:
- create a friendly environment for business based on receiving small tips
- still maintain a solid financial basis for the referral program

***************************************************************

(4) Is it possible to have different transfer fees depending on the pricing policy of the referral business?

This is an interesting question from ElMato which never got answered (again, please let me know if it was):

What happens if we set (as a registrar) the network_fee_percentage to 100%
Will the users registered by this registrar only pay $0.04? and nothing to the registrar?

Could a referral business "subsidize" its customers by giving up some of the referral revenue? (e.g. so that effectively a pay-as-you-go user would get a 50% discount while the referrer's revenue stream would be 50% lower)