bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!

[monsterer]

Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...

It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.

[Empirical1.2]

Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.

That's a very good point.

 

It would better do that. This was one of the problems attempted to be solved by this thing... I thought I have a line about it in the OP? Hmm, apparently not.

Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...

BTS could still be traded on external exchanges as they are today. The key difference is you wouldn't be able to withdraw funds in BTS. ...They could more or less implement this by simply turning off BTS withdraw but leaving on BitAsset withdraws.

So it depends whether crypto traders & speculators would rather stay & trade a BTS IOU on Polo/BTC38 (where they can move in and out of their other crypto positions easily but have a higher risk of loss) or whether they'd rather go through the new, additional BitUSD barrier which possibly increases friction, cost (BitUSD spread) & complexity to get onto the DEX and vice versa.

It's possible, crypto traders & speculators would be more reluctant to move their positions off the centralized exchanges regularly, which could result in less use of the DEX and increased voting power for exchanges. (Who would hold real BTS to back up their BTS IOU.) ?

[tonyk]

Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.

That's a very good point.

 

It would better do that. This was one of the problems attempted to be solved by this thing... I thought I have a line about it in the OP? Hmm, apparently not.

[monsterer]

Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.

That's a very good point.

 

[TravelsAsia]

Why not fork and share drop?

It would be direct competitor to Bitshares. It would divide resources, developers, funding, etc so it's best to avoid forking if possible.

I heard that argument when the initial proposal to merge all the projects so we weren't competing against ourselves. Unfortunately, that didn't do much to the market cap.  I'd love to see 2 chains (not a dev/test chain):

BItShares - Not afraid to experiment, constantly in alpha
2nd Chain - Cleanup what we already have, implement the internal exchange idea

With a share drop and our understanding of the technology, BitShares investors could get in cheap while also testing some assumptions about our brand and constant alpha status.

[Tuck Fheman]

Look what is currently happening to ETH.
A couple of big traders are manipulating the market

[jakub]

Look what is currently happening to ETH.
A couple of big traders are manipulating the market and making big profits for themselves and Poloniex, while ETH shareholders get nothing out of it.
While ETH has no choice, we do have a choice.

It's a kind of paradox that we allow Poloniex to make money on trading our shares, while our core functionality is exactly this: the very process of trading BTS shares.
We lose both money (on trading fees) & liquidity, and what do we get in return? Unfair competition. That's quite dumb.

I really don't understand why BM has withdrawn his support for this idea.

[fav]

just go ahead and implement it. bitshares has nothing to lose and is a consistent alpha version. doubt traders would be surprised at this point.

could this end up being a win-win?

[jakub]

Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.

That's a very good point.

[Brekyrself]

Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.

[Samupaha]

Why not fork and share drop?

It would be direct competitor to Bitshares. It would divide resources, developers, funding, etc so it's best to avoid forking if possible.

[TravelsAsia]

What does tonyk's idea make sense for me?
Because it removes the illusion that our DEX is able to compete with CEX (Centralized EXchange).

Why will DEX always lose out with CEX?
CEX has the advantage of knowing the complete order-book, including short positions. By actively trading using this insider knowledge, the owner of CEX has an extra revenue stream, which DEX will never have.
And if a significant part of this extra income is used to prop up liquidity, CEX will always attract more people, as it has bigger financial power and it can offer better liquidity than DEX.
DEX is not able to cheat on its customers (by having access to the knowledge they do not have), and as most customers are not able to detect this cheating, they accept it as part of the game, and as a result CEX has an unfair competitive advantage.

For me tonyk's idea is smart because it eliminates this unfair competition.

It's an interesting experiment. Why not fork and share drop?

[Samupaha]

So here is the question:
What is you reaction to adding one more obligation to the 'responsible co-op member'. In order to help the co-op's progress and smooth operation every member should help by helping provide some of the native currency. The blockchain enforced min being say 10% of the stake being in collateral. NB no need to actually sell those bitUSD. The believe here is that by having them people will tend to spend them for- transfer/trade fees, membership upgrades??? (I am not even sure we will keep those. Will we?), UIA's etc.

Pay interest (or higher interest) for those accounts that have used their native shares to create bitUSD. Use the carrot rather than the stick.

[jakub]

What does tonyk's idea make sense for me?
Because it removes the illusion that our DEX is able to compete with CEX (Centralized EXchange).

Why will DEX always lose out with CEX?
CEX has the advantage of knowing the complete order-book, including short positions. By actively trading using this insider knowledge, the owner of CEX has an extra revenue stream, which DEX will never have.
And if a significant part of this extra income is used to prop up liquidity, CEX will always attract more people, as it has bigger financial power and it can offer better liquidity than DEX.
DEX is not able to cheat on its customers (by having access to the knowledge they do not have), and as most customers are not able to detect this cheating, they accept it as part of the game, and as a result CEX has an unfair competitive advantage.

For me tonyk's idea is smart because it eliminates this unfair competition.

[fav]

1. It is not MY new chain... it is OUR new chain...

Why not start a new thread with a poll of how the community wants to move this idea to?

a stakevoting would be better though