@JonnyBitcoin I finally have some time to go over your ideas. In my opinion, some of them are good, some of them are not.
- The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%
I agree. This should have happened yesterday. Fortunately, I think everyone is at least close to the same page on this. However, I posit that the reserve pool liquidity will be bought up faster than it will be generated. So, I consider this to be putting a "band aid" on the problem and not a fix.
- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.
I disagree. Unfortunately, we will never be able to compete with Nubits/Tether as far as liquidity (as Bitshares currently exists.) Also, one of Bitshares' features over other solutions (Nubits/Tether) is that we can more easily issue other types of SmartCoins (many FIAT, commodity, stock, indexes, etc.) By doing this we are giving up one of our best features versus other competing implementations.
- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.
This has a similar issue as the last proposal:
Without reading the proposal (and I'm admittedly not fully certain how Ripple works)... doesn't it cause an issue that bitBTC has different risks/value than openBTC has different risks/value than metaBTC ?? What happens to the other xBTC markets when OpenLedger/MetaExchange is defunct and the Bitcoins go missing?
To elaborate, there are more dynamics as well... what if I trust Ronnie but not Shentist? Now, all BTC markets lose my volume instead of just metaBTC or openBTC.
- Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity
The reserve pool is not a huge amount of money. If we are already tightening the peg on SmartCoins, I don't think we can afford to tighten the peg on other markets. As stated above... I posit that the reserve pool liquidity will be bought up faster than it will be generated. So, I consider this places a "band aid" on the problem and doesn't solve the issue.
- Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX
Again, this limits Bitshares functionality and eliminates our competitive advantage as far as features vs competitors features.
- Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.
This seems unreasonable considering legal, regulatory, and logistics. Not to mention the money it would cost to buy an exchange with a decent amount volume.
- Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.
I think this is a good idea. This is similar to my idea here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21124.0.htmlExcept, that your idea provides for more users/transaction fees/a bigger community/etc... and mine provides for a way of directly paying for developers without certain downward pressure on the value. Really, I think we could use it for both. This could be a wide-reaching feature... proof of burn and proof of funding. We could monitor other blockchains by allowing network node (or witnesses/committee/users/gateways) to monitor other blockchains' APIs. Both block explorer and exchange APIs, and make the price feed script easy to switch API data sources (so risks are mitigated by the median being used.) If the active nodes can all agree a transaction occurred, the blockchain can autonomously print them their fair share of BTS. There are more secure implementations available.. that would be a quick "down and dirty" implementation.