bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!

[cube]

big disadvantage: because bitshares will be no longer a cryptocurency, I will be not surprised if coinmarketcap will remove bitshares from the list. In the other hand.. bitshares will be still tradeable.. but only on the DEX.

This may not be a disadvantage and it could very well turn out to be a big advantage.  With the shift to bitUSD/bitCNY, our key well-known product, CMC would now publish a stable, well-pegged, high volume  bitUSD/bitCNY. 

[noisy]

big disadvantage: because bitshares will be no longer a cryptocurency, I will be not surprised if coinmarketcap will remove bitshares from the list. In the other hand.. bitshares will be still tradeable.. but only on the DEX.

[noisy]

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.

Isn't it completely key to this design? Arbitrage is the problem, isn't it, and this solves it?

For me, it seems, that exchanges will have to have similar/the same withdraw fee. They basically cannot offer much more what would be worth of paying additional fee.

But in the other hand, at the same time ... gateway could issue own loyalty program points. And give them to people, for example 10 points for each 1 USD send through gateway. Also... they can distribute in the same way shares of their gateway. Specific gateway can later share a profit with shareholders

[cube]

Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts.  As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.

The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model.  Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX.  To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat.  So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.

When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges.  And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values.  IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op.  I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.   I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers.  Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside.  From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS.   The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.   

I think the perspective is not about restricting movement or tradability of bts (you term it 'isolated chamber') because the movement in and out of the bts network (co-op) remains free via say bitUSD/bitCNY.   That is, there remains a free movement in and out.

Rather the focus is on bitUSD/bitCNY becoming the main gateway into the network.  External exchanges will be trading bitUSD/bitCNY instead of bts.  One of the problems with bitUSD now is that bitUSD users tend to hog their bitUSD holdings.  The new model means users need to convert their bitUSD for bts to use any operation.  With the shift to bitUSD/bitCNY being the main gateway, the trading of bitUSD/bitCNY would go up because of the increase in demand.  The profit opportunities for trading bitUSD and bitCNY would go up too, attracting more shorters ie producers of new bitUSD/bitCNY.  Once the bitUSD peg holds well because of the increased liquidity, confidence of bitUSD set in and we can expect a cycle of even more liquidity.

Bear in mind that there are now dividends giving out to the users and these dividends are based on real transaction fees earned (and not dilutions).  This is an added value proposition.

And of course, as your rightly pointed out, ultimately the other value parts of the network (on/off ramp, FBA, STEALTH, Prediction Market, Bond etc) continue to be the main pulling force to attract users.

[monsterer]

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.

Isn't it completely key to this design? Arbitrage is the problem, isn't it, and this solves it?

[merivercap]

Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts.  As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.

The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model.  Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX.  To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat.  So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.

When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges.  And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values.  IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op.  I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.   I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers.  Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside.  From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS.   The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.     

[tonyk]

Good to have you back, tony.

Well, thanks but  I have never ever left mentally. Maybe money-wise from time to time, but never mentally.

And it is great to have you period, @xeroc! I know this post of mine is lost in the mass of 'fighting posts' of mine as I call them... but I did believe back  when I posted it, as I do now, that you are ' a bright beam of light in generally very dark space'

However, what we need to establish first is on/off-ramps so that investors can get in and out. It is of no use to be able to trade your BTS into bitUSD if you can't get out.
So we need more partners to interface with bitUSD ...

Well, I wrote somewhere up  this thread...this proposal is not a panacea for all 'illnesses' and also working on BTS as if it was  BTC (with all of its gateways/entry exit points etc.)... so yes it would be grate if we had btc's gateways and the rest being BTS tech.

Further, I do not really like the idea of having fees denoted in USD .. unless, we can also pay the fee in EUR, GOLD, etc ... using something similar to the BTS/bitUSD fee pool ..

The main point is focusing only one bitAsset and TRULLY establishing it... after we do that (no matter if it is bitUSD/bitCNY/bitWhatever) I agree, more choices is better than less choices.

[monsterer]

@tonyk Interesting idea - I'd like to hear more on why a price feed isn't necessary in order to value BTS->USD in this model.

[Pheonike]

I guess it would mean BTS would not be directly transferable. They would have to converted to BTA in DEX first.

[xeroc]

I really like the idea ..

Good to have you back, tony.

However, what we need to establish first is on/off-ramps so that investors can get in and out. It is of no use to be able to trade your BTS into bitUSD if you can't get out.
So we need more partners to interface with bitUSD ...

Further, I do not really like the idea of having fees denoted in USD .. unless, we can also pay the fee in EUR, GOLD, etc ... using something similar to the BTS/bitUSD fee pool ..

[cube]

Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts.  As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.

The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model.  Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX.  To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat.  So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.

When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges.  And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values.  IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op.  I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.

[fuzzy]

As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion.  I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:

we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way. 

So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition.  get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment.  Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time.  Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...

The usual problem is, it is hard to simulate real money with fake money (think about how totally boring poker is, when played for fake chips).
[I understand your proposal gives real value to the winner(s). Just thinking about the 'no real loss for the rest" issues/implications.]
I will give it more thought tomorrow fuzz.

We were talking about testing the idea in testnet in Telegram but the disadvantage of a testnet as you pointed out : - we cannot mimic the live network because the risk of losing one's monies is not the same as lossing someone else's monies.

Cause for me there are only 2 choice, really.
1. BM: "dShares just got more interesting."
or
2. TK: "BM is not on board as chief dev. So we are forking and keeping 5-7% as a development fund. The rest is 100% dropped on BTS"

There is one more possible alternative:

3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net.  Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts.  Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.

if you buy into a poker match...people slowly dwindle as they lose their funds and the stakes naturally go up as the same amount of funds is held by fewer (and more skilled players).  So the money you get from being a top trader becomes yours.  and since there is a buyin you ARE risking money, but as you gain money and continue playing the game, you also have added the risk of lost time and effort onto the risk of losing accrued money.  i say make a fixed price buy in and we consider using a worker proposal to double the winnings to the individual who wins. 

Or instead of a worker...we get projects from the bitshares ecosystem and beyond to sponsor the event with their own tokens and we use them to add to the pot (to encourage more participation).

the more i think about it though there will not be any way to award this to a single person, but rather something like the top 10% of those who participate...i am sure i am overlooking some other potential factors but this is very worth looking into.

doing it right and well would require us to collectively use our resources....and imho we should take the time to do it right and get others outside our community to join in, but man would it be worth it.  @ccedk and @fav might be two good people to bring onboard for marketing it around the net.  but there are many others...

[cube]

As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion.  I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:

we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way. 

So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition.  get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment.  Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time.  Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...

The usual problem is, it is hard to simulate real money with fake money (think about how totally boring poker is, when played for fake chips).
[I understand your proposal gives real value to the winner(s). Just thinking about the 'no real loss for the rest" issues/implications.]
I will give it more thought tomorrow fuzz.

We were talking about testing the idea in testnet in Telegram but the disadvantage of a testnet as you pointed out : - we cannot mimic the live network because the risk of losing one's monies is not the same as lossing someone else's monies.

Cause for me there are only 2 choice, really.
1. BM: "dShares just got more interesting."
or
2. TK: "BM is not on board as chief dev. So we are forking and keeping 5-7% as a development fund. The rest is 100% dropped on BTS"

There is one more possible alternative:

3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net.  Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts.  Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts. 

[merivercap]

Interesting thought experiment.

I like the new perspective and language you use when describing the system, but I'm not sure I see enough of a fundamental difference compared to what could be done in the current design. 

Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

When businesses that build on the platform can provide value to consumers then you'll generally have similar outcomes with either design.  In the current design if more consumers find value from the platform we'll eventually get more liquidity internally using bitAssets & BTS and over time we can set the price feed to depend more on internal pricing than external.  You can already borrow liquidity from other exchanges using arbitrage bots like clayop's Kkachi.  Right now not enough consumers find enough value to use the platform and so changing the design will have marginal effect if any.

Note: I do like that you brought up trading bitAssets 1:1 against USD and I believe that was the intention with TCNY and in the works for USD.  It's just a matter of tweaking the parameters, and changing the definition and perception of a bitUSD from 'at least $1' to 'at $1'

Anyways interesting to think about....
     

[tonyk]

As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion.  I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:

we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way. 

So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition.  get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment.  Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time.  Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...

Hmm, good idea!  I must admit this is the first post of your last 100, I have nothing against on any level  (hope same applies to you one day...  working on it ... slowly )
The usual problem is, it is hard to simulate real money with fake money (think about how totally boring poker is, when played for fake chips).
[I understand your proposal gives real value to the winner(s). Just thinking about the 'no real loss for the rest" issues/implications.]
I will give it more thought tomorrow fuzz.