Mutual Aid Society [BLOG POST]

[btswolf]

Thought this may somehow related to MAS...
https://www.topcoder.com/challenge-details/30052578/?type=design

[Empirical1.2]

  Very interesting

In terms of cost breakdown, I got this from a Forbes article...



http://www.forbes.com/sites/arjanschutte/2015/01/21/insurance-7-trillion-goliath/

I think effective management & 'good enough' risk profiling and validation for a global market would be incredibly hard for a decentralised blockchain to achieve. Look at how hard it is for BTS shareholders to add value and manage the blockchain, or how inefficiently and slowly we managed a very small group of delegates.

I imagine if there is potential here, you will see existing centralised MAS's & new ones created that incorporate the blockchain to increase efficiency and reduce costs vs. decentralised versions. (If your identity will be known and the insured risk fairly traditional then a decentralised blockchain would provide little additional benefit.) Also insurers invest their funds which a blockchain MAS would be unable to do until there was a bond market.

If there were risks you couldn't usually get traditional insurance for, then a decentralised blockchain MAS could be good, but insuring yourself against said risks may open you up to increase scrutiny.

Take a random sample of 1000 people.  Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas. 

Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives. 

Prediction markets could be big.

You could sell MAS better, however, how long do you think it would take to do one vs another? MAS seems to be based on a society concept which honestly seems very far fetched atm. It could be done, yes, but the amount of time wouldn't be worth it. This simply because atm we only seem to have CNX to work on stuff.

So would you rather wait for them to develop MAS and not doing anything else and wait for X years or have stuff that can be delivered first and easier like DEX, first and help that bootstrap MAS in the future?

You need to take time into consideration which no one seems to care about. You think competition will just sit around for a couple of years while you build and wait for MAS to work? By then you've already been surpassed. It's a new "market" you say, but so what, if we can have other stuff done first and get shareholders confidence back by delivering something useful and profitable first, why doing something as risky as that, waste precious amount of time? It can be done, imo just not now or we could fall behind. We have something half done (DEX) are we going to forget about that?

That way we will loose the time we spent on building the initial first half of the DEX and the time building MAS which may or not work. If DEX is half finished and can have real utility for users (or so I believe), pausing that to purchase something else that risky is not worth it atm. At least let's finish what it was started first so we can have better conditions to accommodate people while we work on MAS on the future. That way while MAS is being built we might already have a bigger ecosystem and better structure to support it, thus giving MAS itself more chances of succeeding. That's the rational path imo. But in the end it's always up to the voting results of working proposals so...

  Good post. BM was actually one of the first to think of/start BitAssets, but its competitors like Uphold and NuShares, more recently Tether that have been more successful with them.

I'm unsure whether DPOS, Titan and even BTS 2.0 were worth the time involved vs. making the most simple implementation BitAsset possible but with a focus on liquidity, then using those NuShares type profits to build on top of.

As it stands though we now have a great blockchain that has come at a high cost CAP wise. I think now is the time to focus on liquidity or even implementing NuShares type design to generate some profits to pay for other things as opposed to the time and opportunity cost involved in bringing something like MAS to market.

BM has said other things can be done concurrently and he is obviously passionate about this so hopefully we can do both...

[jakub]

Take a random sample of 1000 people.  Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas. 

Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives. 

Prediction markets could be big.

You could sell MAS better, however, how long do you think it would take to do one vs another? MAS seems to be based on a society concept which honestly seems very far fetched atm. It could be done, yes, but the amount of time wouldn't be worth it. This simply because atm we only seem to have CNX to work on stuff.

So would you rather wait for them to develop MAS and not doing anything else and wait for X years or have stuff that can be delivered first and easier like DEX, first and help that bootstrap MAS in the future?

You need to take time into consideration which no one seems to care about. You think competition will just sit around for a couple of years while you build and wait for MAS to work? By then you've already been surpassed. It's a new "market" you say, but so what, if we can have other stuff done first and get shareholders confidence back by delivering something useful and profitable first, why doing something as risky as that, waste precious amount of time? It can be done, imo just not now or we could fall behind. We have something half done (DEX) are we going to forget about that?

That way we will loose the time we spent on building the initial first half of the DEX and the time building MAS which may or not work. If DEX is half finished and can have real utility for users (or so I believe), pausing that to purchase something else that risky is not worth it atm. At least let's finish what it was started first so we can have better conditions to accommodate people while we work on MAS on the future. That way while MAS is being built we might already have a bigger ecosystem and better structure to support it, thus giving MAS itself more chances of succeeding. That's the rational path imo. But in the end it's always up to the voting results of working proposals so...

 
I agree with that.
Also, I agree with Charles Hoskinson that the world is aiming to "tokenize everything" and have a multitude of digital assets & currencies. And to handle that you'll need a DEX to be able to easily exchange one token/asset/currency for another.

[Akado]

Take a random sample of 1000 people.  Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas. 

Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives. 

Prediction markets could be big.

You could sell MAS better, however, how long do you think it would take to do one vs another? MAS seems to be based on a society concept which honestly seems very far fetched atm. It could be done, yes, but the amount of time wouldn't be worth it. This simply because atm we only seem to have CNX to work on stuff.

So would you rather wait for them to develop MAS and not doing anything else and wait for X years or have stuff that can be delivered first and easier like DEX, first and help that bootstrap MAS in the future?

You need to take time into consideration which no one seems to care about. You think competition will just sit around for a couple of years while you build and wait for MAS to work? By then you've already been surpassed. It's a new "market" you say, but so what, if we can have other stuff done first and get shareholders confidence back by delivering something useful and profitable first, why doing something as risky as that, waste precious amount of time? It can be done, imo just not now or we could fall behind. We have something half done (DEX) are we going to forget about that?

That way we will loose the time we spent on building the initial first half of the DEX and the time building MAS which may or not work. If DEX is half finished and can have real utility for users (or so I believe), pausing that to purchase something else that risky is not worth it atm. At least let's finish what it was started first so we can have better conditions to accommodate people while we work on MAS on the future. That way while MAS is being built we might already have a bigger ecosystem and better structure to support it, thus giving MAS itself more chances of succeeding. That's the rational path imo. But in the end it's always up to the voting results of working proposals so...

[donkeypong]

Take a random sample of 1000 people.  Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas. 

When the MAS exists within the confines of this system, requiring Bitcoin gateways to even get started and expecting people to put their trust in blockchains (which they neither understand nor trust), see how much success you have with those 1000 people. And it's trying to cater to a crowd of people who are among the most suspicious and distrusting folks you will meet. Look, I hope it works, but it's not an easy sell. I'd rather we get good at one or two things before trying fifteen more.

[sittingduck]

Take a random sample of 1000 people.  Try to sell them dex vs mas and I bet you will have 10x success with mas. 

Dex is nice, but there are better cex alternatives. 

Prediction markets could be big.

[donkeypong]

So I would like someone to explain how they see MAS as more useful/profitable. I honestly don't see the potential here.

You and me both. MAS would be about #158 on my list of things that ought to get done. The word "profitable" was a major tenet of BitShares when it first started. We were going to show the world how a business could function effectively on the blockchain. But there's nothing profitable about one pet project after another. Does anyone honestly think MAS is going to bring in users? Very few. Essentially, it will be a club for those xisting insiders who want to join. Personally, I'm not interested in joining and I'm not interested in funding it when we still have not achieved our original DAC objectives.

[Akado]

I'm "stuck" with the idea that the DEX could be more profitable and/or bring in more users with right features, like Bond Markets for example, that could let anyone profit from their BTS that otherwise would just sit around and do nothing, while providing liquidity.

So I would like someone to explain how they see MAS as more useful/profitable. Could you give me examples? Or is it because you're thinking long term? I really would like to know because honestly I'm biased, plus I honestly don't see the potential here. So I would like someone to educate me on this, give me a few examples, etc.

Basically if you're strong in favour of MAS and against the DEX related features or if you prefer MAs over DEX, could you please try to sell me MAS?

I really would like to understand so I can have a better opinion on this as now, since I don't fully understand it, I'm just biased.

[jakub]

It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying.  Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst. 

This is where you under-promised:
The initial blog post made it sound like you are pivoting and abandoning DEX. Or telling us that DEX is complete so we need to move on.
People here have put their money and thousands of hours on this forum discussing DEX and its potential. CNX actively encouraged this by outlining the advantages of shared order-book, safety, transparency etc. And one blog post erases all of this. BM contrasts the potential of MAS with the potential of DEX. And this is a big mistake to do that.
It does not take a PR genius to be able to predict that this is going to be a tough sell and people are going to rebel against it. Not because the MAS idea is bad. But because the beloved DEX seems to be abandoned.
You should've put all emphasis on DEX being taken care of. Either by CNX itself or by creating an environment where some other company can take over. And this is the area where it even makes sense to over-promise, just to make it easier to swallow.
You are in a position to over-promise here because taking good care of DEX is within your ability.

This is where you over-promised:
As usual, even before MAS was announced, BM mentioned about its potential to increase the value of LTM ten times or something along these lines. The thing is, nobody knows that. This is pure speculation. The concept of MAS should have been presented in a neutral way, without any speculation about its potential. It works much better when people, after reading a description, discover this potential themselves, make up their minds on their own. This way they feel they discovered this, it originates as an internal thought, not external assumption, especially when it's made by people who have over-promised in the past.
You should not make any promises here because MAS becoming huge is not within your control.

I agree we always need to make reassurances (if we were any good at anticipating how we might be misunderstood).

But there is no intent to make any promises here.   Dan was simply stating that he is looking for ten-baggers when he chooses what to do with his time and money.  He decided to investigate the potential of MAS as the best ten-bagger he has identified.

And current threads are full of my attempts to show how pursuing lucrative assets and applications is the best way we know to drive traffic to the DEX. 

A thriving DEX is assumed to underly everything new we consider.

Relationships between entrepreneurs and their investors are very hard.
(I should know this well as within my own company I play the role of BM and the effects of my words & actions are not much better than his)
So please take this well-intentioned feedback in a humble way and please learn.

Promise (or even over-promise) in areas which you control and about which your investors might feel very sensitive & vulnerable.
Don't promise (or at least under-promise) in areas which are beyond your control.

[Stan]

It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying.  Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst. 

This is where you under-promised:
The initial blog post made it sound like you are pivoting and abandoning DEX. Or telling us that DEX is complete so we need to move on.
People here have put their money and thousands of hours on this forum discussing DEX and its potential. CNX actively encouraged this by outlining the advantages of shared order-book, safety, transparency etc. And one blog post erases all of this. BM contrasts the potential of MAS with the potential of DEX. And this is a big mistake to do that.
It does not take a PR genius to be able to predict that this is going to be a tough sell and people are going to rebel against it. Not because the MAS idea is bad. But because the beloved DEX seems to be abandoned.
You should've put all emphasis on DEX being taken care of. Either by CNX itself or by creating an environment where some other company can take over. And this is the area where it even makes sense to over-promise, just to make it easier to swallow.
You are in a position to over-promise here because taking good care of DEX is within your ability.

This is where you over-promised:
As usual, even before MAS was announced, BM mentioned about its potential to increase the value of LTM ten times or something along these lines. The thing is, nobody knows that. This is pure speculation. The concept of MAS should have been presented in a neutral way, without any speculation about its potential. It works much better when people, after reading a description, discover this potential themselves, make up their minds on their own. This way they feel they discovered this, it originates as an internal thought, not external assumption, especially when it's made by people who have over-promised in the past.
You should not make any promises here because MAS becoming huge is not within your control.

I agree we always need to make reassurances (if we were any good at anticipating how we might be misunderstood).

But there is no intent to make any promises here.   Dan was simply stating that he is looking for ten-baggers when he chooses what to do with his time and money.  He decided to investigate the potential of MAS as the best ten-bagger he has identified.

And current threads are full of my attempts to show how pursuing lucrative assets and applications is the best way we know to drive traffic to the DEX. 

A thriving DEX is assumed to underly everything new we consider.

[jakub]

It is true that we always seem to cause a forum-fire every time BM tries to share his thoughts.
But at least he is trying.  Plus, I've spent untold hours trying to help explain his latest thinking.
But its like trying to have a conversation with people who are determined to assume the worst. 

This is where you under-promised:
The initial blog post made it sound like you are pivoting and abandoning DEX. Or telling us that DEX is complete so we need to move on.
People here have put their money and thousands of hours on this forum discussing DEX and its potential. CNX actively encouraged this by outlining the advantages of shared order-book, safety, transparency etc. And one blog post erases all of this. BM contrasts the potential of MAS with the potential of DEX. And this is a big mistake to do that.
It does not take a PR genius to be able to predict that this is going to be a tough sell and people are going to rebel against it. Not because the MAS idea is bad. But because the beloved DEX seems to be abandoned.
You should've put all emphasis on DEX being taken care of. Either by CNX itself or by creating an environment where some other company can take over. And this is the area where it even makes sense to over-promise, just to make it easier to swallow.
You are in a position to over-promise here because taking good care of DEX is within your ability.

This is where you over-promised:
As usual, even before MAS was announced, BM mentioned about its potential to increase the value of LTM ten times or something along these lines. The thing is, nobody knows that. This is pure speculation. The concept of MAS should have been presented in a neutral way, without any speculation about its potential. It works much better when people, after reading a description, discover this potential themselves, make up their minds on their own. This way they feel they discovered this, it originates as an internal thought, not external assumption, especially when it's made by people who have over-promised in the past.
You should not make any promises here because MAS becoming huge is not within your control.

[svk]

While I don't think this MAS will gain much traction (mutual aid soceties went the way of the dodo for a reason), the technical details seem mostly fine.


One thing that bothers me is that once a claim is validated, it does not pay out immediately but needs transfers from multiple individuals. That part really should get automated imo.

[cube]

In all practicality, CNX needs to find ways to continue funding its existence.  BM believes pivoting to MAS will provide that.  If the community needed any features/documentation to be carried out in order to continue development for DEX, they would need to find their own fund and set a plan of execution. Thanks Jakub for initiating a new thread for it.

[fuzzy]

I like this.  when we really take the time to think about it, bitshares isnt a guild at all.  it is the game itself that all ofher guilds will build themselves into...if done right.  the only big thing would be a step by step guide on how to set something like this up.  it should be easy for anyone to set one up and play without much ramifications (especially with respect to legality)

[luckybit]

http://bytemaster.github.io/update/2015/12/31/Mutual-Aid-Society/

What about the effect of compound interest on this? If a person keeps paying in, and paying in, eventually what they pay in can snowball.

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

@Stan