bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!

[tbone]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.  Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc.  So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?

No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).

Why does it matter if the markets are external or on the DEX?  You still have to factor many different BTS markets.  The only difference is that there would be no BTS feeds for the witnesses to bother with. 

[gamey]

At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

Smartcoins are seen as risky, but they also the best asset of BitShares if they can be made to work.

I thought you are the guy all for MAS.  If I am wrong, then ignore this.  MAS is more risky than this.  You say people won't take on the risk of bitUSD failing them within the hour it takes to purchase BTS, but somehow people will get into crypto (seen as risky) to try an unknown insurance (seen as risky) all based on a decentralized governance (seen as risky). People have to jump through many more faith hoops for MAS.

And a far as risk. Insurance is a gamble of sorts but meant to only pay off when you really need it. Insurance is the most risk sensitive of any investment people make.  That is implicit in the definition of what insurance is. I'd love to see MAS as an experiment. It might gain traction..

Yes, there are issues with the proposal as there are with pretty much any proposal. I do not have much of a stake in BitShares anymore, but if I felt compelled to argue about this I would point out that BTS has had almost 0 adoption as a currency. Therefore it seems reasonable to believe that it won't be hurt that much by making BTS illiquid. It removes price feeds. That is great for marketing. It is now market driven directly.

You guys need something. The currency thing has failed. Why would anyone implement BTS as a payment option?  If I had a storefront with BTS, people would first need to figure out what BTS is, then they'd need to find an exchange (not one of the easy to use BTC ones), then they'd need to get setup there, likely using BTC in between.  On my site, I would need to implement a flow different from Bitcoin. Unless I was happy to stay with BTS, then I have to cash it out. The whole BTS economy was made with blinders on hoping bitassets carries us. (And yes I've had them on myself) At this point the assets are not working and we have 0 bts as a currency adoption, even bitUSD has 0.  Ok...  the useful Scape has a website somewhere...  but nothing even close to serious.

The exchanges can force people to withdraw BTS or just freeze their internal market.  That part isn't _that_ hard for them. Disable deposits, tell people to take their money. Hopefully they support bitUSD in place of BTS, that would be the biggest concern.

[Pheonike]

Could we create a bond asset that converts 1:1 to bts. The funds from the bond asset can be used by for the bot that the committee controls. The reserve pool could then be used to only pay dividends to the bond based on the performance on the bot. This would cut down on the risk of the funds in the reserve pool. The bond holders assume the risk and the network only has to pay out when there is a profit.

[monsterer]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.  Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc.  So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?

No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).

[xeroc]

Bts would only be used to back bts bitUSD. UIA such as open.btc will use the collateral of the issuer.

FITFY

Anyway, @tonyk, would you agree if I say, the whole idea requires quite some on/off ramps to work properly?
I don't see BTS keep it's valuation if there is not enough demand for the products (bitassets).

The whole idea is really really great and we should not forget about it, but I think we should get our 2.0 products out there first. and once we have some liquidity traded in the BTS:bitasset markets, we can then still upgrade the 2.0 products to 3.0 products .. would you agree?

[Pheonike]

Bts would only be used to back bts. UIA such as open.btc will use the collateral of the issuer.

[tbone]

@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only.  Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?

Sorry but I did not get the question.(read it 7 times, btw). Can you rephrase it?

BTS will trade for everything anyone wants to trade it for, in the DEX. And I do not see it trading at 1.01 for say OPEN.USD and at 0.9999 for say TUSD as deviation from the peg [when its price is 1USD/BTS]. If that is the question.

Ok, let me rephrase the question.  Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc.  So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?

[tonyk]

@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only.  Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?

Sorry but I did not get the question.(read it 7 times, btw). Can you rephrase it?

BTS will trade for everything anyone wants to trade it for, in the DEX. And I do not see it trading at 1.01 for say OPEN.USD and at 0.9999 for say TUSD as deviation from the peg [when its price is 1USD/BTS]. If that is the question.

[tbone]

At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

I will not speak for BM, I will just say that some of the concerns that he should have arise for the consequences for BTS and  in particular its transformation to this new state. Something that was pointed out by many. I personally have also acknowledged those issues and have never pretended they do not exist. My personal take is/was they are for the better good and are outweighed by the benefits.
Anyway, the new chain approach eliminates this, as there will be no process of 'eliminating the right to transfer' for current BTS holders and there will be no slow process of outdrawing everything from exchanges and all its messy consequences.

CoinHoarder you should stop reading here if you are not ready to read my posts for what they are - disagreement with ideas/actions and not personal attacks on the poster!!!

I really do not see any issues of any great significance in your post up thread, other than the one address above. Feel free to explain again the ' few very valid concerns' that you believe are the big no-nos. It as well could be me, not seeing them from the correct angle.

@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only.  Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?

[tonyk]

At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

I will not speak for BM, I will just say that some of the concerns that he should have arise for the consequences for BTS and  in particular its transformation to this new state. Something that was pointed out by many. I personally have also acknowledged those issues and have never pretended they do not exist. My personal take is/was they are for the better good and are outweighed by the benefits.
Anyway, the new chain approach eliminates this, as there will be no process of 'eliminating the right to transfer' for current BTS holders and there will be no slow process of outdrawing everything from exchanges and all its messy consequences.

CoinHoarder you should stop reading here if you are not ready to read my posts for what they are - disagreement with ideas/actions and not personal attacks on the poster!!!

I really do not see any issues of any great significance in your post up thread, other than the one address above. Feel free to explain again the ' few very valid concerns' that you believe are the big no-nos. It as well could be me, not seeing them from the correct angle.

[CoinHoarder]

At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

[tonyk]

@tonyk what do you think if I develop this and launch a testing network? Will you lead the testing work? And what do you think is the best approach?

1.I think it is very unlikely 'BTS main' to simply jumps into this new direction itself. Nor I am saying it should - I just see a ton of benefits if it does. Others have pointed concerns. Concerns with various degrees of seriousness. I have yet to see any outweighing the positives, but it is just one man's opinion.

2. I do not see a test chain having any way to prove one way or the other if this thing works. At  the end, We are mainly testing market incentives; and with test-chain where such  incentives are removed  I do not see the experiment working.  What I see is  a new chain testing the theory. I mean a full blown chain of its own, even if its init status matches BTS share distribution 1:1.

3.Assuming we more or less agree on p.2 - It was truly amazing how you have seeming excelled at Graphene code. Especially amazing was the speed with which you did the '*poor man's bandwidth fees' feature [Do not get me wrong - I called it poor man's because it is lacking the stuff that reduces the usage at high tx times (or increases the fee at such times) and paying the fees by locking funds in the future in order to earn fees post factum. On the opposite - they way you did it - aka keeping the fees and just earning them by having a balance for time X, is much closer to what I believe is better (for this proposal purposes and in general)]. So even that the feature (changes) to the existing code I have proposed so far in this thread seem to be just 2-3 times more work than what you have done (coded) for bitshares already, my biggest issue remain funding this new chain. And while I am willing to do what you call testing for free [I am not very sure what will I really test, as I am not much of a coder. So it will be more like running the code as a user and seeing if it works, more than true testing]
So wile I and seemingly you are ready to start working on this for free, I would feel much better if we had some more solid plan regarding the future financing of the project. While "if it starts successfully, we can later on run workers on the dShares" is a plan, but a plan not good enough in my oppinion. And not because I have wasted my own time, but more because I have not given the project enough chance to succeed. In particular I do not consider just diluting Bitshares [or dShares] by worker proposals 'financing the development'. For me it should work something like this - real investor  is found. He pays the devs in cash (so they can live). The worker proposal is for ( actual cost to develop * 1.33 ) and the worker pay is locked (for 1.5-2 years; ); the investor recieves those new shares after said 1.5 year. Selling those worker pays in the DEX in some sort of "Worker Backed Assets" is a interesting possibility, but then again the feature itself requires development (money) in itself.

* 'pragmatic man's approach' is probably a better term - it cuts the fancy [and more difficult to implement] and not particularly useful stuff out; while also keeping the possibility to pays the fees directly.

Anyway, those are some of my current thoughts. Your (and anybody else take) on those issues is welcomed.

[donkeypong]

Yes, please try it on a test network. Call it dexSHARES or something to distinguish it. bitSHARES is nice, but it is spelled and sounds the same.

[abit]

@tonyk what do you think if I develop this and launch a testing network? Will you lead the testing work? And what do you think is the best approach?

[hadrian]

1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.

How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?

Nice try, but no thanks.

This doesn't make sense. Are you are saying that any feature which exists is inexorably beneficial?
Things aren't that simple.

I get the feeling that if BitShares were to be built from scratch with the knowledge we have now Tonyk's idea would be implemented. I wonder whether it could yet end up happening...

edit: P.S. I'd be tempted to support the idea if it came to a tipping point.