Locking BTS: How Can Users and Chain Benefit From This

[Akado]

I see your point Tony. It makes sense. I was just thinking out loud because I'm not a trader. To create bitassets (I think that was your point) I have to take a position, either short or long, right? That doesn't really make my type. Of course you could argue that the fact of simply holding BTS without doing nothing implies I'm long, but still, not being a trader I would like to avoid that kind of stuff as not to mess things up and loose a certain amount of my BTS...

Benefiting the user would be nice of course, but atm I think simply the fact of benefiting the network is good enough. In fact, very good. That's what we need and it indirectly benefits the user in the end.

Still, I think you're right on this one because the simple fact of holding BTS implies I'm long, even if long term. Thanks.

[tonyk]

I know it is brainstorming thread.... and during brainstorming even mentioning negative stuff is discouraged, to say nothing about hitting the brain with well accelerated 4 by 4....


But it is idiotic to want to profit X tiny percent by holding BTS, to say nothing about wanting to have more 'voting power' when you do not believe enough in the project... enough to put 700% collateral on any bit asset and help the product itself.

All I am saying is there is a way to 'lock' your bts and truly benefit the project... but if you believe it will be viewed as worth 7 times less, go ahead and try to rediscover the wheel instead of just put your 5 cents into building the existing wheel.
In the meantime just keep in mind you are actually helping it get that low by doing just that....


-----
'True' believers thinking out loud: "we have a wheel building going on here...but it might be not that good...it might even break. Let's sit and think of a better wheel, no need to put our effort or money in something that might be...breakable. "

Innocent impartial observer: "Why?"

'True' believers : "Well, mainly it is not turning at all right now, it is not finished but....  it is not turning...so we think very unstable or something might be wrong with it. Trully  "
-----





PS
And I understand the rotting starts from the head. and if we assume no ill intend [something I am not ready to stand by in the last 1+ mo.], I personally believe one should be VERY critical to his own ideas and once they have passed this test actually do stand by actions behind those ideas/ in support of said ideas... not the other way around - totally believing any/all great stuff coming to his head ...allowing no doubt about it....  and not standing by, supporting same stuff by real actions when the ideas turn to semi-finished product.

[Akado]

It doesn't make sense to encourage people locking BTS.
I encourage people trade/transfer more, no liquility no value.

i agree with you, however, what about non traders? there are shareholders that dont trade. you dont need to trade bts. traders will mostly trade other assets like bitcoin, usd, cny and other coins too i guess. so they could lock their bts because a shareholder that wants to hold his bts can tstill use them for something

also there are aways people who simply hold and dont trade.

One thing are traders, they are users. other is shareholders.

[Empirical1.2]

Could something like the nubits liquidity pools work?

e.g We sent/lock  bts and btc to a "pool" for 6-12-24 months and recieve some interest from a worker proposal for doing this, a bot then uses those funds to create bitUSD with HUGE collateral(600%) and maintain a tight peg with BTC. We could have a tight peg like nubits but we can advertise that bitUSD is backed by HUGE colateral and it's not a fractional reserve scheme than can colapse at any time. If this could work, nubits would be destroyed.

I think that could work.  It would be a really great solution since we would only be using a worker proposal to pay interest, rather than providing the collateral as a blockchain.

  Good idea.

There's so many businesses that could be built up around Smartcoins. For me they're more important than platform improvements at this stage.

With the current collateral requirement Smartcoins seem to be very low risk but have a very high spread as a result.

I think we need to experiment with other options. A higher risk version for holders which would hopefully offer a tighter spread or even a version where holders pay interest in return for liquidity.

Everything revolves around creating tightly pegged, liquid, decentralized Smartcoins imo.

BTS holders benefit from that so maybe they even need to taken on some of the risk in return for the benefit.

If you do that the BTS CAP goes up but very little else including fiat gateways or the completion of Stealth etc. will have much impact.

 

 

[Akado]

Could something like the nubits liquidity pools work?

e.g We sent/lock  bts and btc to a "pool" for 6-12-24 months and recieve some interest from a worker proposal for doing this, a bot then uses those funds to create bitUSD with HUGE collateral(600%) and maintain a tight peg with BTC. We could have a tight peg like nubits but we can advertise that bitUSD is backed by HUGE colateral and it's not a fractional reserve scheme than can colapse at any time. If this could work, nubits would be destroyed.

I'm not sure about a worker proposal to pay interest, even though we have to pay for liquidity. But yeah I was also thinking about something around those lines, if it's feasible and makes sense.

What matters is we use resources to the max. We have plenty of people with BTS sitting around doing nothing. If we find a way to transform those "useless" BTS into something productive, would be very good both for users and DAC, we just have to find a way.

[alt]

It doesn't make sense to encourage people locking BTS.
I encourage people trade/transfer more, no liquility no value.

[puppies]

Could something like the nubits liquidity pools work?

e.g We sent/lock  bts and btc to a "pool" for 6-12-24 months and recieve some interest from a worker proposal for doing this, a bot then uses those funds to create bitUSD with HUGE collateral(600%) and maintain a tight peg with BTC. We could have a tight peg like nubits but we can advertise that bitUSD is backed by HUGE colateral and it's not a fractional reserve scheme than can colapse at any time. If this could work, nubits would be destroyed.

I think that could work.  It would be a really great solution since we would only be using a worker proposal to pay interest, rather than providing the collateral as a blockchain.

[chryspano]

Could something like the nubits liquidity pools work?

e.g We sent/lock  bts and btc to a "pool" for 6-12-24 months and recieve some interest from a worker proposal for doing this, a bot then uses those funds to create bitUSD with HUGE collateral(600%) and maintain a tight peg with BTC. We could have a tight peg like nubits but we can advertise that bitUSD is backed by HUGE colateral and it's not a fractional reserve scheme than can colapse at any time. If this could work, nubits would be destroyed.

[Akado]

What could we do, that by locking up bts could benefit users and the chain? In the past we've seen discussions about increased voting power. What could we have more? Any way to get interest on that? I guess that would go into the bond markets section more?

Any ideas? Imagine you could lock your BTS for an X amount of time. What could benefits could that give to you?

- More voting power
- Interest?

Any more ideas? Or how could the chain benefit from this. My guess would be there wouldn't be so many BTS floating around getting dumped. Any way it could help reduce collateral required for the creation of bitassets if someone else wants to create them, that at the same time wouldn't compromise the system? or doing that and get a share of the fees produced from bitasset trading? Idk just brainstorming. Share your ideas. It would be nice for long term holders to do and benefit from while they hold and at the same time benefiting BitShares itself.