bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!

[Samupaha]

We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.

This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.

Not exactly.  Remember, the goal is not to disable transfers.  The goal is simply to get the DEX to be the dominant market for trading BTS.  And that's exactly what is going to occur over time.  With the proper incentives, a growing number of people will begin to trade BTS on the DEX.  As that happens, and along with other measures taken, liquidity will grow, the peg will tighten, even more people will trade on the DEX, the peg will tighten further, and so on through the virtuous cycle until the dominant market for BTS is on the DEX. 

Yeah, you are right that probably raising the price would be enough. But for me the most important thing is that we get voting power out of exchanges so I'd rather see them losing it fully, just to be sure that it's not used harmfully in anytime in the future.

[-banano-]

the BTS price is starting to rise for the sharedrop pump!

here we go

to the mooooon!!!



we are still months away aren't we?

 

[tbone]

We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.

This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.

Not exactly.  Remember, the goal is not to disable transfers.  The goal is simply to get the DEX to be the dominant market for trading BTS.  And that's exactly what is going to occur over time.  With the proper incentives, a growing number of people will begin to trade BTS on the DEX.  As that happens, and along with other measures taken, liquidity will grow, the peg will tighten, even more people will trade on the DEX, the peg will tighten further, and so on through the virtuous cycle until the dominant market for BTS is on the DEX. 

Bitshares has already achieved a level of network effect that 99.9% of blockchains could only dream about.  Now we just have to incentivize a growing number of people to change their behavior slightly (i.e. to trade BTS on the DEX instead of on centralized exchanges over time), which is going to be FAR easier than forking the code and trying to get people to trade unknown shares of an unknown DAC on an unknown DEX.   That just isn't going to happen.  So why split the community, divide attention, and waste resources for no good reason, especially at this crucial time when things are starting to come together?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Mostly caught up on this thread...

It's a smart idea with many benefits. If I understand correctly, the only change required to make this happen is to simply disallow transfers of asset 1.3.0 (core asset).. this could theoretically be accomplished by adding a single line of code, no? (assert asset_id != 1.3.0 for transfer_op)

But I don't think it's wise to create a fork and fragment our resources at this point.. is some form of hybrid approach/compromise? For example.. I threw out the idea a while back to create a separate BTSVOTE token and sharedrop it 1:1 on BTS. BTS would no longer be used for voting, and exchanges could sell their BTSVOTE tokens to whoever valued them more. This way, they would be fairly compensated for giving up their ability to vote. (Not that I think this is necessarily practical but more of a thought experiment)

Something like this.. but in reverse perhaps? Graphene when it was being developed had the CORE asset being used. Going into Bitshares it was switched to BTS.

What if we performed a hardfork that swiched the CORE asset in the network from BTS, to a new symbol.. and THAT would be the one that is non-transferable with a 1:1 sharedrop on everyone minus the exchanges balances.

BTS can continue to trade as the 'coin'

A new non-transferable unit could be used as the backing. Lets call it HODL

By resetting the core asset of the network to becoming something new with a 1:1 sharedrop we are basically letting BTS fend for itself in the wild while the new HODL becomes the bedrock to all assets.

It's so easy to say this in a forum post.. but I have a fair idea of the numerous operations that are going to be involved in switching this that are going to give BM a minor anxiety attack.

We got plenty of time to continue to debate over various ideas.. whatever happens shouldn't be taking place for at least another 6-7 months anyways.

[tonyk]

We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.

This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.

I gather we are closing in on how "slow and steady arm twisting" is much better than a open offer and explanation why what we propose is better, -take it or not kind of deal?


I do not like it the slightest!!!!

[Samupaha]

We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.

This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.

[tbone]

I've been wondering if there would be any  benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:

• BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
• BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)

Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.

Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".

Interesting. and if we manage to get to say 66% converted to non-transferable state, we can switch off the feed and go to market (DEX) pegged assets.

What you're really demonstrating here is that there are MANY things we can do to INCENTIVIZE people to keep their BTS on the DEX.  No need to FORCE them to do (or NOT do) anything.  You came up with some good incentives.  There are others.  We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.  There is utterly no reason to fork for this concept and doing so will be a real embarrassment and a total waste of resources.  Come up with a forkable concept (they do exist) and I'm sure there wouldn't be nearly as much negative reaction.

[nomoreheroes7]

I've been wondering if there would be any  benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:

• BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
• BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)

Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.

Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".

Interesting. and if we manage to get to say 66% converted to non-transferable state, we can switch off the feed and go to market (DEX) pegged assets.

Yea, I'd rather see a hybrid solution like that as opposed to a fork.

[tonyk]

I've been wondering if there would be any  benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:

• BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
• BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)

Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.

Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".

Interesting. and if we manage to get to say 66% converted to non-transferable state, we can switch off the feed and go to market (DEX) pegged assets.

[hadrian]

I've been wondering if there would be any  benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:

• BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
• BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)

Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.

Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".

[roadscape]

Mostly caught up on this thread...

It's a smart idea with many benefits. If I understand correctly, the only change required to make this happen is to simply disallow transfers of asset 1.3.0 (core asset).. this could theoretically be accomplished by adding a single line of code, no? (assert asset_id != 1.3.0 for transfer_op)

But I don't think it's wise to create a fork and fragment our resources at this point.. is some form of hybrid approach/compromise? For example.. I threw out the idea a while back to create a separate BTSVOTE token and sharedrop it 1:1 on BTS. BTS would no longer be used for voting, and exchanges could sell their BTSVOTE tokens to whoever valued them more. This way, they would be fairly compensated for giving up their ability to vote. (Not that I think this is necessarily practical but more of a thought experiment)

[Samupaha]

Imo, to consider a valid, established BTS price, yes there has to be some way to directly purchase BTS. Either through an exchange, fiat gateway or some other avenue.
With this proposed structure, that option is off the table.  Hence, giving BTS a indirect value instead of an actual value.
Which in turn undermines the collateral argument when it comes to bit assets.
I don't see the DeX as being manipulative towards BTS pricing, but we don't have the volume of users either to justify it as public for making the argument valid.

Intuitively I'd say that it is enough if BTS is traded in several different pairs with good liquidity. If price of BTS is determined in markets with USD, CNY, EUR, gold, silver, etc. (with gateway-assets and smartcoins) it should be obvious what the price is. BTS just have to first get into a position where internal markets are very liquid, after that I'm not sure the problem still exists.

It would be probably better if BTS isn't used to back only bitUSD (as tonyk is suggesting) but to back all or at least many of the smartcoins. That would create more markets, and with more markets price discovery process is more reliable. It's true that all those markets would be in same blockchain, but given that it is unrestricted to use for everyone, I would say that the price discovery process will work well enough.

If there was bitBTS that could be traded freely anywhere, wouldn't that pretty much solve this problem? Anybody could buy or create bitBTS, move that to external exchange and trade it there.

[monsterer]

I agree AJ. It seems like circular reasoning to me. Who or what factors determine how many BTS it takes to equal 1 BitUSD?

How is that established when the chain is launched? How is the peg maintained?

Exactly the same way it happened for BTS - as long as the DEX has IOU tokens for BTC, ETH, whatever, you can have internal arbitrage which will give value to the new BTS.

I suppose that suggests that the initial markets for the new BTS will require IOU tokens because otherwise, exactly what do you price BTS in? It can't be bitUSD because without anything on the books, there is no valuation.

[emailtooaj]

That's my point.
1.75 value of what? Company shares. O.k. What proof can you show me that the company share is worth anything at all?
I'm not trying to poo poo the ideas here, they are all great. But this is one very big component that hasn't been discussed. Like I said, this is the whole foundation to the whole system. Until this one fact can be determined without a shadow of a doubt, then it's a moot point.

How that differs greatly from BTS?
Ohh wait, they also consider income the fees paid in BTS, to evaluate the worthiness of BTS, to back its bitAssets. One more level of self chaining, IMHO.

I'm not 100% understanding your comment here, but...
what ever fees are paid,
what ever income is paid,
what ever mechanics are used in the system,
it all boils down one thing...

What are people willing to pay for BTS? Now, whether they (the market in this case),  are considering other mechanical system factors to determining and valuating BTS price, then that can be argued whether it's rational or not?
Tony, your an active trader... you know that once you click BUY/Purchase on the exchanges for BTS... that is what someone is willing to pay and THAT is what brings BTS (our current BTS) price into focus.  So in our current system we now know, without a shadow of a doubt,  that BTS is worth "X" amount and from here, every other bitassets value can be properly established.
You pull this one mechanism off the table like I just described, then everything else is just speculative and could be viewed as "shady".
I'm not claiming that the internal DeX is useless or manipulative or can't create the value, or that this idea won't work.
In actuality, IF you.. or anyone else here,  can clearly peg a BTS value (and not via it's pegged assets) with this type of system,  then we have a winner winner chicken dinner staring at us!  Because almost ALL of the mechanics that's been described within this post is legit, other than this one question in regards of BTS value.
Like I mentioned earlier, I to came across this same thought process of this type of system layout... but it ALWAYS boiled down to one question... What gives BTS it's value?



 

[Thom]

I agree AJ. It seems like circular reasoning to me. Who or what factors determine how many BTS it takes to equal 1 BitUSD?

How is that established when the chain is launched? How is the peg maintained?

Not to mention what has to be put into place in order to launch - witness nodes, committee members, voting / campaigning. You're talking about duplicating what BTS is now + the proposed changes.