Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016

[Akado]

Maker/taker should go live asap.

There is no one willing to make a proposal atm, it seems. We'll have to wait.

[yvv]

Maker/taker should go live asap.

[xeroc]

[Akado]

update


Bitshares Blockchain to be available in Microsoft Azure
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21115.msg282759.html#msg282759
Status: Done ✔
Developer: Fox

MKR and DAI Focused BitShares Front End
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21778.msg283693.html#msg283693
Status: Done  ✔
Developer: Nexus
Link: https://x.makerdao.com/

Moonstone Wallet
Currently waiting to be released!
Practically no Fees, Integrated Market with External Exchanges, One Click Sign Up to External Exchanges, Secure Client Side Encryption, Live Updating Interface, Ability to make your Own Backups  - https://moonstone.io/
Status: Alpha
Developer: Bitsapphire
Link for Alpha test: https://app.moonstone.io/register

Smartcoins Point Of Sale (POS) & BitShares Wallet for Android/iPhone
Wallet currently being submitted for approval on app stores
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20762.0.html
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@kenCode/smartcoins-wallet-roadmap
Status: Alpha
Developer: BitShares Munich
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Maker/Taker
This is the first of many new proposals that don't cost the BTS stakeholders much of anything to get powerful new features.  In this case all the stakeholders must do is grant permission for a hardfork that implements a new feature.  100% of the new feature is self funded. 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20482.0
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: 100000 BTS
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Rate Limited Fees
Free transactions proportional to user's stake and transaction frequency
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.0.html
Status: Ongoing
Possible Developer: abit
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Negative Fees
As a mean of Subsidizing Market Liquidity. Allows people to get paid for orders sitting on the order books for more than 24 hours for example. This is done to prevent abuse and people buying/selling to themselves. A worker is needed for a specific market. This worker will pay for this negative fees. I think this could be seen as a loan, we pay now, to increase liquidity which will reward BitShares later.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -



Bitcoin Sidechain
Bitcoin could be used as collateral for example. It is speculated this would help improve liquidity as atm collateral for MPAs is currently ~200% and with Sidechains, collateral would be reduced to 100%. More MPAs on the market as its creation would have less restrictions.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: $200000
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: 3 months

Bond Market
Seems to have been delayed. In order to properly work needs deep market depth. We are not there yet.
Update: on the 2016-02-26 Hangout, @bytemaster mentioned he would start to work on a Bond Market proposal. Discussion here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21700.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: $60000
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

MetaTrader4 Integration
The key feature of MT4 is the ability to buy, create and run your own trading bots - this is a massive source of liquidity and trading volume and there are vast libraries of such bots available on the metatrader marketplace https://www.mql5.com/en/market/mt4
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19816.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Autobridging
The BTC → BTS and BTS → USD can be synthesized into a synthetic BTC → USD. The real and synthetic BTC → USD order books can be be further synthesized into single combined order book.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21781.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -




Others:
- Ethereum Virtual Machine. Ethereum Contracts, but faster.

[traeapodaca]

You must contact to good Bail Bond for the purpose of bailing.

[cube]

This road map is copied into bts Basecamp - https://3.basecamp.com/3319348/buckets/621127/documents/88397031 for easier reference, share and update.

I can't login...

I think you need to create an basecamp account first.  PM @Samupaha your email.

[kenCode]

This road map is copied into bts Basecamp - https://3.basecamp.com/3319348/buckets/621127/documents/88397031 for easier reference, share and update.

I can't login...

[cube]

This road map is copied into bts Basecamp - https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/qbYLmCbqG244epwXKwGyiFcE  for easier reference, share and update.

Edit: Updated link.

[Stan]

I'm not sure how much even a large marketing campaign will help.  I know what bitshares offers yet I'm not using the exchange.  The perception is it's just an exchange w/ newly added bells/whistles.  ETH and MAID aren't being propelled due to marketing.  Instead, they have a compelling story, a fresh identity that's starting to become reality.

For the long-term viability of bitshares, I think we should start creating relationships outside our world.  Sidechains would be the place to start because a collaborative effort is needed anyways to get it to where it's a game-changer for bitshares.  We can initiate an open dialogue with Blockstream.  Why not us post on their forum?  The visibility would be more far-reaching than a take-a-look-at-us approach..

Working relationships would create and open new opportunities for future ideas.  Result:   automatic buzz, a sense that bitshares is working for everybody, great PR.  I can see CNX getting long-term work from it.

This thread just started by JonnyBitcoin is a good start.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html

This makes a lot of sense to me.

BM/Stan - What is the CNX's take on this approach?

Ok, ok.  All this awesome thinking has goaded me into finally releasing this draft article.

"Marty, What are we going to do with all that power?"

Let me know if you can use any of it.

[cylonmaker2053]

every business needs marketing, even DACs. in the spirit of a DAC, though, we probably don't need a single coordinated marketing effort. maybe it's best if we break the effort into manageable chunks and have trusted members of this community run with areas they think they can best handle. as a finance researcher specializing in investments with a project management background, i think i can reasonably handle a low-level sustained campaign targeting traders. i also think this is one of the primary groups we should be introducing to our technology.

if someone can either help walk me through how to put together a worker proposal or at least point me to some resources, i'd consider running with this particular effort.

the plan would be to pay someone in this community to put together a reasonable marketing package targeted to traders, mainly highlighting the awesome features of the DEX, then i'd use social media and direct marketing to select retail traders and ultimately small institutions. I'd manage a loose team of freelancers to build and work through a database of candidate traders, and outsource contact.

i'm extremely busy, so this would be a low level effort meant to be sustained over a prolonged period with discrete outreach objectives.

thoughts?

[cylonmaker2053]

i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.

@cylonmaker2053 You are a perfect candidate to be a Meetup group host. Meetups are the best way to introduce new people to Bitshares and everything the platform has to offer. We have a mobile wallet now too and in a couple weeks we will have the first couple POS systems ready for launch as well so right now is the perfect time to setup a meetup at your local coffee shop, bar or whatever. It's friendly, social people like you who are our greatest asset! Check this out, it is very easy:
http://bitshares.meetup.com

thanks for the vote of confidence. i actually started a crypto club on campus last year, but there wasn't much support and i got buried in work, so i shelved it. maybe it's time to resurrect it and give it a Bitshares skew...

i also like the meetup idea for major cities, but the campus is where all the crypto action is around this small town (and that is not much yet), so i think it best for me to focus on the university club first and then perhaps expand to a general meetup.

[mike623317]

I'm not sure how much even a large marketing campaign will help.  I know what bitshares offers yet I'm not using the exchange.  The perception is it's just an exchange w/ newly added bells/whistles.  ETH and MAID aren't being propelled due to marketing.  Instead, they have a compelling story, a fresh identity that's starting to become reality.

For the long-term viability of bitshares, I think we should start creating relationships outside our world.  Sidechains would be the place to start because a collaborative effort is needed anyways to get it to where it's a game-changer for bitshares.  We can initiate an open dialogue with Blockstream.  Why not us post on their forum?  The visibility would be more far-reaching than a take-a-look-at-us approach..

Working relationships would create and open new opportunities for future ideas.  Result:   automatic buzz, a sense that bitshares is working for everybody, great PR.  I can see CNX getting long-term work from it.

This thread just started by JonnyBitcoin is a good start.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html

This makes a lot of sense to me.

BM/Stan - What is the CNX's take on this approach?

[kingslanding]

I'm not sure how much even a large marketing campaign will help.  I know what bitshares offers yet I'm not using the exchange.  The perception is it's just an exchange w/ newly added bells/whistles.  ETH and MAID aren't being propelled due to marketing.  Instead, they have a compelling story, a fresh identity that's starting to become reality.

For the long-term viability of bitshares, I think we should start creating relationships outside our world.  Sidechains would be the place to start because a collaborative effort is needed anyways to get it to where it's a game-changer for bitshares.  We can initiate an open dialogue with Blockstream.  Why not us post on their forum?  The visibility would be more far-reaching than a take-a-look-at-us approach..

Working relationships would create and open new opportunities for future ideas.  Result:   automatic buzz, a sense that bitshares is working for everybody, great PR.  I can see CNX getting long-term work from it.

This thread just started by JonnyBitcoin is a good start.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21814.0.html

[Chris4210]

People are apprehensive about paying for marketing ever since Brian page fucked us.  Not saying that pay for marketing wouldn't work, but the last attempt set bts back massively.  It was false promise after false promise.

We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.

Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, kick me in the balls and tell me not to be so dumb.

Yeah... but I think you can agree that some of their lack of performance had to do with a less than marketable product. Or at least not being able to find a market that wanted/needed/could use that product other than those that invested.

What we had then to what we have now is like night and day.

We do not need to pay a marketer.. what we do need are tools to allow people to better market what we have and a roadmap to how people can profit for themselves using the refer program. Now mind you someone can design a program like this themselves and host their own wallet and then in turn be able to profit based on their performance. It's just that the barrier to entry on that front on the technical end is a bit more than most marketers are willing to stomach.

So there are two or three items I see that we could potentially consider if we were going to use a Worker in this regard:

1. Market research to better identify our target audiences so that we can target our messaging accordingly - intelligence
2. Develop the process/app of launching customized wallets to be more adoptable for marketers - tools
3. Have a management and development department with these tools to promote/manage/support marketers - execution

There is literally the largest army on earth of work at home affiliate marketers that can be employed if the right type of alignment is put in place as i have outlined.

That is where we should be focusing as a DAC platform.

To enable the masses with opportunities to prosper through Bitshares.

We can put together such a proposal for a 'roadmap' in this regard along with budgetary requirements and proposal to execute.

Perhaps with the introduction of no negative voting it might have some legs.

This all really depends on if you want to see Bitshares brand itself grow. Leaving it to anybody else only will result in the promotion of their own brand. Take for example Ronnie.. Openledger is the brand being promoted along with Obits... his efforts affect the price of obits, not really Bitshares.

If you want to see market cap and branding of Bitshares grow, then these are my recommendations based on 20+ years in business.

Thoughts?

Good suggestions, we can definitely make it easier to use our products. But I have my doubts that any market will build his MLM business based in BitShares. There are so many other good systems, schemes on the market for online markters to earn easy and fast money. BitShares market entry barriers are far to high. And as mentioned before, please show me a reasonable business plan where you can make profits through the referral program alone. The referral program profit center is to small! You need to invest thousands in marketing to get a few hundred in turnover.

I think we should focus on the frustrated Bitcoins users and show them our Technology. It took me 90minutes for one BTC transactions yesterday oO . Coindesk /Twitter is full of agree Bitcoin users who are frustrated. Why not trade BitBTC instead?

[Chris4210]

Obviously every business that builds on top of Bitshares will do some form of marketing for their own business/brand.  But I agree with @Chris4210 that Bitshares itself very much needs a coordinated, focused marketing effort.  Isn't CNI going to be handling that?

We at BitShares Munich will have a talk with CNI this week to talk about these issues. CNX officially stopped market BitShares and Graphene Technology itself (see Xerocs comment). CNI will have a huge task to promote BitShares and they are not from the community itself.


@abit true it takes more people to get a worker in. But that is how we structured it right? We need to "apply" our marketing project to the DAC and win enough support to get started. That means, whoever is running the BitShares marketing project needs to develop a convincing gameplan for the next few months plus required funding to get the marketing going. It would be a plus to set up milestone workers too. I fully agree that nobody should get the marketing budget for free again. Workers need to deliver what the promised.


@lil_jay890 Do we have other, reasonable suggestions how to improve the BitShares brand? How could we use the worker funds efficiently?

[TravelsAsia]

We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.

You might want to check your history. I was with you concerning Brian Page.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

People are apprehensive about paying for marketing ever since Brian page fucked us.  Not saying that pay for marketing wouldn't work, but the last attempt set bts back massively.  It was false promise after false promise.

We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.

Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, kick me in the balls and tell me not to be so dumb.

Yeah... but I think you can agree that some of their lack of performance had to do with a less than marketable product. Or at least not being able to find a market that wanted/needed/could use that product other than those that invested.

What we had then to what we have now is like night and day.

We do not need to pay a marketer.. what we do need are tools to allow people to better market what we have and a roadmap to how people can profit for themselves using the refer program. Now mind you someone can design a program like this themselves and host their own wallet and then in turn be able to profit based on their performance. It's just that the barrier to entry on that front on the technical end is a bit more than most marketers are willing to stomach.

So there are two or three items I see that we could potentially consider if we were going to use a Worker in this regard:

1. Market research to better identify our target audiences so that we can target our messaging accordingly - intelligence
2. Develop the process/app of launching customized wallets to be more adoptable for marketers - tools
3. Have a management and development department with these tools to promote/manage/support marketers - execution

There is literally the largest army on earth of work at home affiliate marketers that can be employed if the right type of alignment is put in place as i have outlined.

That is where we should be focusing as a DAC platform.

To enable the masses with opportunities to prosper through Bitshares.

We can put together such a proposal for a 'roadmap' in this regard along with budgetary requirements and proposal to execute.

Perhaps with the introduction of no negative voting it might have some legs.

This all really depends on if you want to see Bitshares brand itself grow. Leaving it to anybody else only will result in the promotion of their own brand. Take for example Ronnie.. Openledger is the brand being promoted along with Obits... his efforts affect the price of obits, not really Bitshares.

If you want to see market cap and branding of Bitshares grow, then these are my recommendations based on 20+ years in business.

Thoughts?

[tbone]

I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.

Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,

I strongly disagree. Looking at the great success of Ethereum I think we need a coordinated, Blockchain funded(worker), marketing approach that drafts a story around our technology. I do not believe that people will just "come". That might have been the case with Bitcoin, since it was all new. Now 99% of people know the Name Bitcoin, while 1% have ever bought a Bitcoin. No IT-geek will start to look over again for the best technology out there. They looked at Bitcoin and see it fail.

If you look for Blockchain solutions today, we have over 200 stand alone Blockchain providers alone. All those Blockchain consultants and independent IT Software solutions are loud and negotiating with corporate and governments about trail projects today. There will be no second Overstock scanning the whole market for the best solution. Let alone R3 & IBM and is providing working solutions for their clients already.

In these days BitShares can not allow to be quite and just build feature after feature to hope that maybe somebody will discover us in our little corner of the market.

BitShares needs to be loud. It needs to show presence at conferences and market the hell out of it. @Dan must go back on the road and challenge Ethereum in an epic battle of super Blockchain masterminds.

At the end we will all benefit from that. Every BitShares company will take off like a rocket as soon as the marketcap rises and we can sell our BitShares depots to fund further development. What if you have been an Ethereum Startup with a few thousands ETH in reserves? You had enough time to liquidate at ~$10 USD and are now sitting on a working capital of $+100.000 to market, build and create awesome products. BitShares does not have that luxury, so we need to come all together, use the resources we have today and promote our main features - Price stable Crypto Currencies!! That beats Bitcoin alone!

We do not have 4 months time to wait. The train will be gone for us.

Obviously every business that builds on top of Bitshares will do some form of marketing for their own business/brand.  But I agree with @Chris4210 that Bitshares itself very much needs a coordinated, focused marketing effort.  Isn't CNI going to be handling that?

[lil_jay890]

People are apprehensive about paying for marketing ever since Brian page fucked us.  Not saying that pay for marketing wouldn't work, but the last attempt set bts back massively.  It was false promise after false promise.

We also paid delegates like method-x to do marketing, in which he did absolutely nothing.

Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, kick me in the balls and tell me not to be so dumb.

[abit]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.

You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?

I think, in my opinion, that the referral program has been to weak from the start. You cannot build a profitable business based on the referral program alone! I calculated 4 different business plans based on BitShares and considered several profitable income streams. At the end, the referral program always ended up with below 5% of the total income. It is hard to predict the real referral income for the next 3 years. You cannot convince any investors with such a business model.

If you want to build MLM systems look at http://beonpush-guide.com/english/index.html or similar platforms. Nobody else pays you 0,5%-3,5% interest per day! That is a real MLM construct. You would need to take Beonpush on BitShares to build a interesting MLM for Online Marketers.

I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.

Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,

I strongly disagree. Looking at the great success of Ethereum I think we need a coordinated, Blockchain funded(worker), marketing approach that drafts a story around our technology. I do not believe that people will just "come". That might have been the case with Bitcoin, since it was all new. Now 99% of people know the Name Bitcoin, while 1% have ever bought a Bitcoin. No IT-geek will start to look over again for the best technology out there. They looked at Bitcoin and see it fail.

If you look for Blockchain solutions today, we have over 200 stand alone Blockchain providers alone. All those Blockchain consultants and independent IT Software solutions are loud and negotiating with corporate and governments about trail projects today. There will be no second Overstock scanning the whole market for the best solution. Let alone R3 & IBM and is providing working solutions for their clients already.

In these days BitShares can not allow to be quite and just build feature after feature to hope that maybe somebody will discover us in our little corner of the market.

BitShares needs to be loud. It needs to show presence at conferences and market the hell out of it. @Dan must go back on the road and challenge Ethereum in an epic battle of super Blockchain masterminds.

At the end we will all benefit from that. Every BitShares company will take off like a rocket as soon as the marketcap rises and we can sell our BitShares depots to fund further development. What if you have been an Ethereum Startup with a few thousands ETH in reserves? You had enough time to liquidate at ~$10 USD and are now sitting on a working capital of $+100.000 to market, build and create awesome products. BitShares does not have that luxury, so we need to come all together, use the resources we have today and promote our main features - Price stable Crypto Currencies!! That beats Bitcoin alone!

We do not have 4 months time to wait. The train will be gone for us.

Thanks, your words are very good.

But, who do you think you can convince by posting HERE, to achieve your/our goals? Is it very useful if you convinced me? No, I'm not a marketing guy, so I won't do anything even if I agree with you. I don't have much stake to be able to make decisions either. So don't waste time on me. And who else?

Yes, be loud. But to OUTSIDE.

[Chris4210]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.

You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?

I think, in my opinion, that the referral program has been to weak from the start. You cannot build a profitable business based on the referral program alone! I calculated 4 different business plans based on BitShares and considered several profitable income streams. At the end, the referral program always ended up with below 5% of the total income. It is hard to predict the real referral income for the next 3 years. You cannot convince any investors with such a business model.

If you want to build MLM systems look at http://beonpush-guide.com/english/index.html or similar platforms. Nobody else pays you 0,5%-3,5% interest per day! That is a real MLM construct. You would need to take Beonpush on BitShares to build a interesting MLM for Online Marketers.

I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.

Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,

I strongly disagree. Looking at the great success of Ethereum I think we need a coordinated, Blockchain funded(worker), marketing approach that drafts a story around our technology. I do not believe that people will just "come". That might have been the case with Bitcoin, since it was all new. Now 99% of people know the Name Bitcoin, while 1% have ever bought a Bitcoin. No IT-geek will start to look over again for the best technology out there. They looked at Bitcoin and see it fail.

If you look for Blockchain solutions today, we have over 200 stand alone Blockchain providers alone. All those Blockchain consultants and independent IT Software solutions are loud and negotiating with corporate and governments about trail projects today. There will be no second Overstock scanning the whole market for the best solution. Let alone R3 & IBM and is providing working solutions for their clients already.

In these days BitShares can not allow to be quite and just build feature after feature to hope that maybe somebody will discover us in our little corner of the market.

BitShares needs to be loud. It needs to show presence at conferences and market the hell out of it. @Dan must go back on the road and challenge Ethereum in an epic battle of super Blockchain masterminds.

At the end we will all benefit from that. Every BitShares company will take off like a rocket as soon as the marketcap rises and we can sell our BitShares depots to fund further development. What if you have been an Ethereum Startup with a few thousands ETH in reserves? You had enough time to liquidate at ~$10 USD and are now sitting on a working capital of $+100.000 to market, build and create awesome products. BitShares does not have that luxury, so we need to come all together, use the resources we have today and promote our main features - Price stable Crypto Currencies!! That beats Bitcoin alone!

We do not have 4 months time to wait. The train will be gone for us.

[kenCode]

i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.

@cylonmaker2053 You are a perfect candidate to be a Meetup group host. Meetups are the best way to introduce new people to Bitshares and everything the platform has to offer. We have a mobile wallet now too and in a couple weeks we will have the first couple POS systems ready for launch as well so right now is the perfect time to setup a meetup at your local coffee shop, bar or whatever. It's friendly, social people like you who are our greatest asset! Check this out, it is very easy:
http://bitshares.meetup.com

[cylonmaker2053]

I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.

Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,

i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.

[Akado]

I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.

Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,

[cylonmaker2053]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.

You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?

referrals only be one type of marketing. why not consider our budget like any other business --part would go to SG&A, R&D, and part of the former would be a diversified marketing strategy.

[abit]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.

You're officially announcing that the referral program is a failed design. Why use worker funds to do marketing?

[cylonmaker2053]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

i tend to agree with @Chris4210 on the point that we need to be promoting current capabilities. that's not to say that i think we should simultaneously halt tech dev, but perhaps shift some % of resources from new R&D to marketing. i'd recommend allocating about 20% of our budget to marketing, 80% to the usual worker project mix that includes docs, Web, and features. start there, see how things evolve, and iterate as it makes sense.

[Chris4210]

Thanks @Akado to list the current major projects for Bitshares.

Please also add the Liquidity discussion to the list too. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0/all.html
maybe @xeroc could help @Empirical1.2 to set up a BSIP?

I think we must decide very soon which projects really can bring us forward. We should not spend our worker funds on simple assumptions or fancy techy proof of concept projects. We do not need to fund a prediction market today, we also do not need a ethereum virtual machine yet. We need to promote the features we have today. Why don´t we focus on our competitive trading fees and price stable crypto currencies?

I suggest we spend a fair amount of the worker funds for real marketing and promoting our features today´s. That could include taking BTS of the major exchanges and promote BitUsd instead. What if Polo traders could store their trading profits of eth etc. in bitusd instead of btc? I think that could be very interesting for crypto only exchanges like polo.

We also need a project to promote BitShares to major exchanges. Why not focusing on bringing BitUSD to Bitfinex, Kraken, BTC38? Every Fiat on-ramp will help us.

[Empirical1.2]

To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).

One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).

The interest will go to people who put their BitUSD/BTS in the liquidity pool paid for by BTS shareholders.

If you were yield harvesting BitUSD, so had BitUSD in your account anyway it may not take much to convince you to send some of it to the liquidity pool. I know very little about market making and liquidity pools but I  have created a liquidity pool discussion and given an example of one so hopefully I/we can find out more about if they are a helpful/cost effective way of achieving liquidity and a tight peg. Would be interested in your opinion/input...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21800.0.html

What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?

My temporary conclusion is: when it's possible to do yield harvesting, if you want more interest from BitUSD, don't put your BitUSD into liquidity pool. Or say, any interest on BitUSD will make the cost of running a liquidity pool more expensive, since the investors expect more return.

By the way, why not quote and/or reply to the rest of my previous post?

All these features can be done in 3rd-party CLIENT SOFTWARE, but not have to be done in the core, nor have to ask for BM's or other core developers' opinion. It's safe to let the committee hold and distribute the funds for incentives.

In regards to the funds for development, you can try IPO or other ways to raise funds first, after main functionality is completed developing, sell the feature to stake holders via worker (or maybe you'll find it's good to operate it by yourself at that time).

What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?

When the sell side gets depleted, the interest rate gets higher to attract new BitUSD into the pool. You could also raise the price from $1.01-$1.02. (The interest for the pool would be subsidized by BTS shareholders.)

My temporary conclusion is: when it's possible to do yield harvesting, if you want more interest from BitUSD, don't put your BitUSD into liquidity pool. Or say, any interest on BitUSD will make the cost of running a liquidity pool more expensive, since the investors expect more return.

That's true but I think even if you were yield harvesting at around 5% a year, that would only be 0.013% a day so it shouldn't have much impact on our decision to use the liquidity pool which pays 0.2% a day I think however there should be a lot of BitUSD in existence willing to participate if it was already yield harvesting.

By the way, why not quote and/or reply to the rest of my previous post?

Sorry, my response was only to the interest part so I only quoted that. (I don't have a strong opinion on the rest yet but I think yes a third party option would probably be best at first so it can be tweaked easily.) 

[abit]

To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).

One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).

The interest will go to people who put their BitUSD/BTS in the liquidity pool paid for by BTS shareholders.

If you were yield harvesting BitUSD, so had BitUSD in your account anyway it may not take much to convince you to send some of it to the liquidity pool. I know very little about market making and liquidity pools but I  have created a liquidity pool discussion and given an example of one so hopefully I/we can find out more about if they are a helpful/cost effective way of achieving liquidity and a tight peg. Would be interested in your opinion/input...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21800.0.html

What if the pool sold out some or most of its BitUSD? Then where does the interest come from?

My temporary conclusion is: when it's possible to do yield harvesting, if you want more interest from BitUSD, don't put your BitUSD into liquidity pool. Or say, any interest on BitUSD will make the cost of running a liquidity pool more expensive, since the investors expect more return.

By the way, why not quote and/or reply to the rest of my previous post?

All these features can be done in 3rd-party CLIENT SOFTWARE, but not have to be done in the core, nor have to ask for BM's or other core developers' opinion. It's safe to let the committee hold and distribute the funds for incentives.

In regards to the funds for development, you can try IPO or other ways to raise funds first, after main functionality is completed developing, sell the feature to stake holders via worker (or maybe you'll find it's good to operate it by yourself at that time).

[Empirical1.2]

To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).

One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?
).

The interest will go to people who put their BitUSD/BTS in the liquidity pool paid for by BTS shareholders.

If you were yield harvesting BitUSD, so had BitUSD in your account anyway it may not take much to convince you to send some of it to the liquidity pool. I know very little about market making and liquidity pools but I  have created a liquidity pool discussion and given an example of one so hopefully I/we can find out more about if they are a helpful/cost effective way of achieving liquidity and a tight peg. Would be interested in your opinion/input...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21800.0.html

[abit]

I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind.  He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions.  He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc.  He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points.  First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting.  Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets.  So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity.  Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.

So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg.  I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.

Agreed @tbone. BSIP needed. Let's git'r done. Once live, you have our votes.
@Empirical1.2

That's really positive from BM. Regards a BSIP I haven't done one before but feel it may need BM's input to turn that idea/concept into something viable. If someone wants to attempt one I'll certainly support it otherwise I may have time to do one later in the week.

This week I may attempt to get in touch with some liquidity pool operators to find out if it's easier/cheaper to incentivise liquidity once millions of BitUSD have been created & can be used as that would certainly make a stronger case for it too.

To be honest I'm interested in the liquidity pool only (my own opinion).

One question: will BitUSD in liquidity pool produce interests? If yes, to whom?

All these features can be done in 3rd-party CLIENT SOFTWARE, but not have to be done in the core, nor have to ask for BM's or other core developers' opinion. It's safe to let the committee hold and distribute the funds for incentives.

In regards to the funds for development, you can try IPO or other ways to raise funds first, after main functionality is completed developing, sell the feature to stake holders via worker (or maybe you'll find it's good to operate it by yourself at that time).

[Empirical1.2]

I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind.  He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions.  He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc.  He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points.  First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting.  Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets.  So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity.  Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.

So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg.  I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.

Agreed @tbone. BSIP needed. Let's git'r done. Once live, you have our votes.
@Empirical1.2

That's really positive from BM. Regards a BSIP I haven't done one before but feel it may need BM's input to turn that idea/concept into something viable. If someone wants to attempt one I'll certainly support it otherwise I may have time to do one later in the week.

This week I may attempt to get in touch with some liquidity pool operators to find out if it's easier/cheaper to incentivise liquidity once millions of BitUSD have been created & can be used as that would certainly make a stronger case for it too.

[kenCode]

I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind.  He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions.  He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc.  He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points.  First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting.  Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets.  So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity.  Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.

So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg.  I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept.

Agreed @tbone. BSIP needed. Let's git'r done. Once live, you have our votes.
@Empirical1.2

[tbone]

I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind.  He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions.  He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc.  He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed out that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points.  First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting.  Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets.  So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity.  Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.

So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg.  I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept. 

[Zapply]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does. 

Any bank pay you interest for the money in your pocket?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html

[Akado]

Very encouraged to see this roadmap.. it's an ideal route for people widely to see progress being made. Well worth the effort then keeping it up to date..

I wonder that some estimated dates ~Jan2016 need restating.. would be interesting for example, to see more clearly where Moonstone is up to, as that's not immediately obvious for all the posts we might find by searching, having it all in one place is much more friendly to potential investors.   

There's not much communication from Bitsapphire so it's hard to know. We only known that because of the 2.0 release they had to adapt and change stuff, which wasted previous work and time.

[davidpbrown]

Very encouraged to see this roadmap.. it's an ideal route for people widely to see progress being made. Well worth the effort then keeping it up to date..

I wonder that some estimated dates ~Jan2016 need restating.. would be interesting for example, to see more clearly where Moonstone is up to, as that's not immediately obvious for all the posts we might find by searching, having it all in one place is much more friendly to potential investors.   

[cube]

Done!

Great!  Please add 'Bitshares blockchain to be available in Microsoft Azure'.

[Akado]

updated

I think some of the status '-' should be "To Be Discuss further/Determined" or "On-Hold".

Done!

[cube]

updated

I think some of the status '-' should be "To Be Discuss further/Determined" or "On-Hold".

[Akado]

updated

[abit]

Ken, if I remember correctly BM is against that idea. And it's even harder to go due to the anti dilution movement. Result of forum poll makes less sense than stake voting. Many Chinese holdes never come to English board.

[kenCode]

I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

[tbone]

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of).  But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system.  So why even bother? 

Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg.  This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity.  This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle. 

All we need to do is jump start this process.  We need to prime the pump, so to speak.  It will not happen on its own.  We are running out of time.  And unfortunately this community is asleep.  Respected contributors are not paying attention.  Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own.  Let's see how far this gets us.  I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope.  I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered.

@tbone If bitassets become way more liquid with tighter spreads, then call me a supporter (URL of Empirical's BSIP?). Customers will love that too when paying at the cash register since they will pay way less money in fees. Just fyi, merchants pay nothing. Merchants just download the free POS app and then stick the "Smartcoins accepted here" sticker in the window. The rewards card features in the POS gives them even more incentive to use our apps.

@kenCode, Empirical's idea is not the only measure we need.  But as I described up thread, it would be an effective first step toward bootstrapping BitAssets, with very little cost.  Empirical hasn't drafted an official proposal.  I assume he hasn't gotten that far because there hasn't been enough support for it.  Or at least not enough vocalized support.  Although there was a poll, and a slight majority was in favor of it.  Actually, come to think of it, about 21% of the poll respondents voted in favor of not doing this now.  So it was really only 37.7% that was flat out against it. 

In any event, the first URL below is a link to a summary of his idea.  That post has a link at the bottom to another thread with more discussion on the matter.  The second URL below is a link to a post on this thread that further makes the case. 

I hope you'll take a closer look and get behind this idea and hopefully help others see the merit and importance of this.  We don't have time to keep sitting on our hands.  The window of opportunity is going to close.


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg281291.html#msg281291

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21541.msg283518.html#msg283518

[kenCode]

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of).  But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system.  So why even bother? 

Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg.  This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity.  This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle. 

All we need to do is jump start this process.  We need to prime the pump, so to speak.  It will not happen on its own.  We are running out of time.  And unfortunately this community is asleep.  Respected contributors are not paying attention.  Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own.  Let's see how far this gets us.  I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope.  I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered.

@tbone If bitassets become way more liquid with tighter spreads, then call me a supporter (URL of Empirical's BSIP?). Customers will love that too when paying at the cash register since they will pay way less money in fees. Just fyi, merchants pay nothing. Merchants just download the free POS app and then stick the "Smartcoins accepted here" sticker in the window. The rewards card features in the POS gives them even more incentive to use our apps.

[Zapply]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

High demand in bitAssets don't increase BTS price and don't increase the supply of bitAssets, only increase BTS value then people have more confidence in BTS people willing to create bitAssets.

[tbone]

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of).  But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system.  So why even bother? 

Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg.  This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity.  This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle. 

All we need to do is jump start this process.  We need to prime the pump, so to speak.  It will not happen on its own.  We are running out of time.  And unfortunately this community is asleep.  Respected contributors are not paying attention.  Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own.  Let's see how far this gets us.  I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope.  I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered. 

[kenCode]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

[tbone]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

[Empirical1.2]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa   on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does. 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

 

[cylonmaker2053]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

[Empirical1.2]

If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

[EstefanTT]

That should be spoken tomorow at the hangout. I hope one of you guys will throw the question in the hangout thread or in the live session.
My understanding of sidechain is not good enough to speak out but I'm very interested by the potential !

[JonnyB]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

Agreed 

A bitcoin sidechain is quite enough to be getting on with for now.

[nomoreheroes7]

I agree with Erlich (and personally enjoy reading his posts heh). But yea it's pretty clear the possibilities with sidechains are huge. I sincerely hope BM considers this to be at or near top priority.

[Pheonike]

If we implement sidechains, what happens to collateral that's tied up in bitBTC? Do we remove the shorting function for bitBTC. Will the BTC sidechain be for a new BTC Smartcoin?

[cylonmaker2053]

Our marketing execution has been a joke

 

well, we'll get there...let's just be supportive and keep pressing forward

[Erlich Bachman]

Our marketing execution has been a joke

 

[cylonmaker2053]

trolling this message board like it's 4chan makes Bitshares look like a joke.

[cylonmaker2053]

@Erlich Bachman i regret wasting about a minute of my time reading that shit. you'd be a lot more effective stripping the emotional bs and focusing on a point.

[Akado]

Updated "others" with mt4

[Erlich Bachman]

"why are sidechains so critical to our success?"

seriously?  Did you not read a word of this thread?!!

here, let me help you:











look up:










 






where's your pride woman?!

This is BitShares!


The world outside your closed bedroom door is saying that we are not a real crypto unless our workers run a bitcoin node too.



What do you think our market cap would be if the world viewed us as a "real" crypto?

And how hard is it for our workers, who are already running a BTS node, to run a BTC node as well?



Let me try to explain this to you in a ELI5 Disney fashion OK Pinochio


You are not "real" and therefore, you will not obtain any "real" capital investment.  You may think that you are "real" but you do not posess the $30 mllion necessary to raise our market cap to profitibility.  The public has this money, but they need you to prove that you are "real" in order to give you their real money.  Just like how you need to prove to a woman that your love for her is real (if you want her to love you back) you need to prove to the market that your crypto is real. And it just so happens that it is easier for us to do this than it is for BlockShares. Why? becauae DPOS has already established some (enough) trust.   They need to develop a multisig system, we don't. Why? Because  our miners have never screwed us, and thus have proven trustworthy.  Their miners have zero history, and are by definition less trustworthy than ours. Thus our first mover advantage in this particular space. So why stop competing in this race I say, when we are already half way to the finish line?  Are we not Spartains?  Now we have the ability to effectively monetize this trust.  But we need some of our miners to run multiple nodes if we want this money. 

If your definition of "success" is increasing "market cap(ital investment)" then you. MUST convince the world that you are in fact "real". and the only truly logical way that they are saying will convince them that we have become real is for us to pay a couple miners a few extra bucks to donload the BTC blockchain and manually exchange a few "actual (not fake)" BTC for BTS (without stealing them), and just like that Pinochio, you become a real man.

Call them gateway nodes, exchange nodes, masternodes, DEXnodes. Hell, I got 1000 BTS for the most creative and inspiring answer:

SpaaaTaaaaNodes!!

TLDR : this is the most bank for your buck low lying fruit that would legitimize us among the top "real cryptocurrencies", because, your market cap will continue to suck until the point in time that you choose to become "real"

So the question is simple:

When do you want to become real? When can a worker volunteer to run multiple nodes, and how much extra will they need to be paid?



If you kids don't take this free money, then I'm leaving to join the "real" men in the BlockShares community because you obviously have no clue what awaits you outside your bedroom door. Your obvious lack of life and love experience has stunted your ability to empathize with your target market (living/loving/emotional human beings who hold the cash that you desire to "successfully" raise your market cap).  See, Pointdexter, marketing is just logical math after all.

And anyone who thinks that having the ability to trade "real BTC" is bad for the bitBTC will be floored when they see that it actually legitimizes the reputation of bitBTC as a "real cryptocurrency"

[cylonmaker2053]

Bitcoin sidechain means trading real BTC on the DEX.  Surely you see the incredible implications of that.  Then imagine adding robust BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR markets so people can trade their BTC in and out of fiat in a decentralized manner.  That's just the beginning.

As for paying yield to those who create BitAssets, @bytemaster mentioned on the last mumble that he likes the idea of paying people to lock up their BTS but that it's much more helpful if they take the next step and provide liquidity.  That's why I'm suggesting a small yield paid by the reserve pool for getting people to move funds to the DEX and create BitAssets in the first place, thereby jumpstarting activity on the DEX and making us the world's crypto fiat leader....and then using another small amount of funds from the reserve pool to incentivize a subset of the BitAsset creators to participate in a liquidity pool.  The cost is neutral to those creating BitAssets.  Actually, considering the great benefits, everyone including those not creating BitAssets should gain due to a rising BTS price.  All things considered, it seems like such a no-brainer to try this.

i can def see big value in bringing BTC and other cryptocurrencies directly into our DEX. kinda defeats the purpose of trading bitBTC then, but actual BTC would have more value than the synthetic version.

what is the reserve pool anyway? i've heard it referenced repeatedly, but how much is it, how was it accumulated, and who controls it? 

[tbone]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.

why are sidechains so critical for our success?

how would the 1% (or whatever %) be paid to those who borrow smartcoins? taken from fees in each respective market? if so, i'd support something like that and go one step further and not place a specific % yield on any asset; i'd recommend setting a % split from fees collected in each respective market. that way we're really supporting liquidity by rewarding short sellers more as transaction frequency increases, and the payment stream is robust to changing market conditions ...if transactions fall, so do payouts without breaking any other funding source.

Bitcoin sidechain means trading real BTC on the DEX.  Surely you see the incredible implications of that.  Then imagine adding robust BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR markets so people can trade their BTC in and out of fiat in a decentralized manner.  That's just the beginning.

As for paying yield to those who create BitAssets, @bytemaster mentioned on the last mumble that he likes the idea of paying people to lock up their BTS but that it's much more helpful if they take the next step and provide liquidity.  That's why I'm suggesting a small yield paid by the reserve pool for getting people to move funds to the DEX and create BitAssets in the first place, thereby jumpstarting activity on the DEX and making us the world's crypto fiat leader....and then using another small amount of funds from the reserve pool to incentivize a subset of the BitAsset creators to participate in a liquidity pool.  The cost is neutral to those creating BitAssets.  Actually, considering the great benefits, everyone including those not creating BitAssets should gain due to a rising BTS price.  All things considered, it seems like such a no-brainer to try this. 

[cylonmaker2053]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.

why are sidechains so critical for our success?

how would the 1% (or whatever %) be paid to those who borrow smartcoins? taken from fees in each respective market? if so, i'd support something like that and go one step further and not place a specific % yield on any asset; i'd recommend setting a % split from fees collected in each respective market. that way we're really supporting liquidity by rewarding short sellers more as transaction frequency increases, and the payment stream is robust to changing market conditions ...if transactions fall, so do payouts without breaking any other funding source.

[tbone]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market. 

[Louis]

Excellent point Erlich. I will be willing to donate also. 

[kingslanding]

  x 100 agreement w/ Erlich. 

The sidechain meme would be a total game changer for us.  Bitshares would have a clearly defined identity it badly needs.  Marketing would be a cake walk since the whole bitshares community would have something easy-to-understand to back. Imagine the bitcoin community support we would generate.  I think it would warrant the title Bitshares 3.0.  The bond market can wait.

[Erlich Bachman]

Like I said, considering that we would not have to do all that "automated sidechaining bullshit" because we already have a "vetted trusted and easily fire-able" network of responsible miners means that it would only take a fraction of the time that it would take any other community to develop a "multisig based trust" environment.

Therefore, theoretically, we are in the lead on the sidechaining forefront, and this "lead" is ours to lose.

If you do not believe this, then how can more people buy Nubits which have more counterparty risk than bitUSD?  You cannot argue with the logic here: our customers don't want security, they want ease of use, and have been voting with their cash.  The proof is in their (Nubits) marketcap.  The market wants pegged assets and sidechaining and obviously does not care that they are accepting more counterparty risk with Nubits than they are getting with bitUSD, so why would they care that our sidechain has more counterparty risk than that of "BlockShares"?

They wouldn't (as long as the principles of math are still in effect here)

Yes, we can always improve our security (counterparty risk) profile by adopting any multisig best practices in the future, but we already have invested time and money into creating a "trusted mining network" and the "multisig" level of security is not technically necessary to create a functional product.  Therefore, it would be stupid for us to not bring a simplified sidechaining product to market. And frankly, any criticism against the counterparty risk of our sidechaining system (no multisig yet) would highlight the fact that our trusted DPOS miners have been not screwing us for years, so why should they start now?

In other words, all we have to do is pay xeroc or someone else to run a bitcoin and Ether node, and transfer bitcoins to Ether to bts, and just like that, we have the first ever:

"TRUSTED (based on the fundamental power of DPOS  to create trusted mining systems) REAL (not market pegged assets or UIA's but real Ether and BTC) DEX"

and who cares that "our Nubits" have more counterparty risk than "their bitUSD"

See, the shoe is on the other foot now so to speak.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are beating them at their own game.  Do unto others etc.  Do you get it?  You think that they are not taking this as a competition?  They took your marketing angle:

BLOCKSHARES?!

Seriously?

Not an ounce of originality.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then, let's give them something tangible to immitate at least!

This is one area where we don't need to be perfect in order to grab market share (not just market share, but FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGE in the "REALDEX" space!)(what's that worth?)(and thus future funding).  We are getting our best bank for our marketing buck, and I would personally donate to such an initiative.

I'm no computer expert, but I know that a streamlined system is easier to develop than one with all the bells and whistles expected from a new (BlockShares, can you believe the balls of these guys, our market obviously cares not for originality either) blockchain.

So to finally answer your question about how long it would take us to launch our "simplified sidechain system ("REAL" DEX), I can only say with confidence:

not as long as it would take to launch the complex multisig-trust based sidechain system that BlockShares is proposing

They realistically can't take our "streamlined" approach, because they are not the incumbent.  Let's leverage our historically established DPOS invention here to get some more funding!  If we are not going to leverage/use our "first mover advantage" benefits (DPOS), then what kind of game are we playing?  Do we like getting our ass kicked by an unoriginal clone of ourselves?

Well then let's step it up.

I got a day job, so I got donations.  What do you bring to the table?

[mint chocolate chip]

This sidechain idea, how long would it take to build that?

[Erlich Bachman]

I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.

I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

I completely agree, with everything except doing the bond market prior to sidechains.  BM recently stated that it would take 3 months to build the bond market (they are still debating the theoretical format/mechanism), so you know this really means "6 months" in dev-speak, and would anyone really be surprised if it took a year?

So when we finally come out with our version of sidechaining, we not only would not be first or second, we would be irrelevant.  I believe Dr. Evil here makes sense in the regard that we should be paying a couple miners to run a concurrent bitcoin node just so that we can say that you can trade "real" BTC (in addition to bitBTC).  Because, check this out, here is our major advantage:

We don't have to figure out how to do "multisig" right now simply beacause our workers are already vetted (elected) and trustworthy, and of course:

able to be voted out at a moment's notice

So you see, sidechaining is a hell of a lot easier for us to do simply because we already have a trustworthy network of miners and penalty for scamming already in place.

Tell me that you would not trust xeroc running a bitcoin node?

In fact, if you took donations just to do this project alone, I think that we could have a MVP to market in no time.

Plus, if xeroc stole someone's real BTC in a trade, then I'm sure we would vote him out, and compensate the victim through community donation just to save out share price (worst case scenario)

Yes, the security (counterparty risk) would only be to a level of that of a UIA, but you know that nobody cares, why?

Does anybody care that bitUSD counterparty risk is lower than Nubits?

Based on the fact the fact that they are kicking our ass in adoption, no, it's obvious that our market doesn't care about security, so why do the whole convoluted "multisig" thing.  They must jump this hurdle because they don't already have what we have: a network of trusted miners who for years now are still working for peanuts and have not screwed us.  This network of trusted miners is a valuable asset for this particular application, and is one that can help us bring this particular product to market faster than anybody else, and to not recognize this simple fact demonstrates extreme stupidity in our ability to market our existing products (yes our existing and trusted network is a valuable asset in this case)

So why can't we play the same game and beat them to the punch (do the same thing with more theoretical counterparty risk because it's proven that the market frankly don't give a shit about counterparty risk) the worker is already proven trustworthy, and technically, the asset is "Real" bitcoin.

I think that by overlooking the fact that we already have an established "miner trust" mechanism in place, that we already have a serious advantage of getting a MVP to market tomorrow!

[cylonmaker2053]

I am in favour of anything that strengthens the DEX though as I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

well said, i agree. We already have products that the world doesn't yet know it needs, so i support any effect that goes towards making the products better, more readily available, and the DEX more efficient.

[Empirical1.2]

I vote that we should wait until Nubits does it first (they should be launching soon):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.msg11153629#msg11153629

"The Basics:

B&C Exchange will be an open-source decentralized exchange that completes cryptocurrency trades between users by utilizing multisig signers that compete for blockchain rewards based on their effectiveness and honesty. Trades will occur using real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and NuBits, as opposed to artificial proxy cryptoassets like those found in BitShares."

Face it fellas, the game is over, and you lost.  You gave bitUSD to Nubits and now you are giving the DEX away, when all you had to do to become a "real crypto" in the eyes of the crypto masses was to have your miners simply run 2 chains instead of 1. Just go and build your bond market, that nobody cares about right now, and leave the spoils of victory of becoming the "first real DEX on planet earth" to the real players.

I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.

B&C Exchange is hiring two full time C++ developers.

Progress has been slower than expected because developers (most of whom had agreed to work about half time) haven't put in the quantity of hours that were discussed when the project began. Fortunately, this means little funding has been consumed, so we get another chance without needing any additional funding. The best way to resolve the issue is to simply require full time developers, so they don't have any other work competing for their time and attention. Additionally, these two full time developers won't be working on the NuBit project at all. There has been a dynamic where the shared team for B&C Exchange and NuBits tends to put more time than expected on NuBits because it is a live and operational network, which means issues tend to seem more urgent than they do for the not yet operational B&C Exchange.

Previously, the strategy had been to use the same team members that had accomplished the amazing technical feats we see in the NuBits project. This approach hasn't worked. During NuBit development, we had a team of 5 or 6 people working full time. The NuBit budget experienced an 80% reduction in funding before B&C Exchange funding was successfully obtained. So, the team was mostly disbanded. Getting funding for B&C Exchange was not sufficient to pull the team back together for a second project.

With two full time developers, a full time QA resource, most of my attention going to my architect role, and a number of veteran part time developers, the project should be well positioned to be completed the middle of this year.

I am still very confident the design of B&C Exchange is practical and viable. Major progress has been made, particularly in the form of our 4.0 RC2 build, which contains a large percentage of the features needed in B&C Exchange. The change in direction toward new full time developers is likely to bring the core software to completion in a timely manner. While there is still a good chance we will be able to complete non-core infrastructure such as a web interface with our current budget, the chances appear lower than they did a number of months ago.

Much will hinge on the quality and devotion of the developers who have yet to be hired. Active shareholders should do their best to encourage excellent candidates to reach out to me.

It's just too bad that the rest of the community is blind to the millions of dollars looking for the world's first "real" DEX

BlockShares only raised a few hundred thousand and are short of funds so I wouldn't say it's a case of people throwing money at them atm. I am in favour of anything that strengthens the DEX though as I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

[abit]

yeah, you get to vote for your miners just like we do, so everyone basically has the same incentive to not work against the team like we do. Nobody has been doublespent on that matters anyway.  All anyone cares about now is features, not decentralization or speed or scalability anymore.

 Blockshares, if you can't already tell from he name, is a general copy of BitShares' governance structure, except it is "real" like bitcoin and Nubits, and not "artificially" fake like BitShares/bitUSD, or so says the global leading smartcoin liquidity provider.

So it seems you're a Nubits fan? You think Nubits is successful. Yes, MtGox and Cryptsy were successful as well.

[abit]

I vote that we should wait until Nubits does it first (they should be launching soon):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.msg11153629#msg11153629

"The Basics:

B&C Exchange will be an open-source decentralized exchange that completes cryptocurrency trades between users by utilizing multisig signers that compete for blockchain rewards based on their effectiveness and honesty. Trades will occur using real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and NuBits, as opposed to artificial proxy cryptoassets like those found in BitShares."

Sounds interesting.. my questions here:
* "multisig signers compete for blockchain rewards"? How much "reward" is enough to avoid stealing customers' funds?
* "based on their effectiveness and honesty"? Historical honesty records is able to prove future honesty?

And more interesting thing is:
while we're building the bond market feature, most likely we'll build a reputation system, it will be more or less helpful to the side chain design. "Reputed signers hold the multi-sig private keys of the customer deposited funds".

[kingslanding]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

If BTS exploded w/ each coin added, I don't think witnesses would mind running more nodes. 

Seriously, though, if a worker proposal for sidechains gets approved, we could immediately send a press release to create a buzz around the bitcoin world.

Plus, we would be in the good graces of the bitcoin centric guys

Yes, excellent point.

I think we should market a BTS-BTC sidechain like a theatrical release.  Promote & hype it until the release date.  Hit the trollboxes, the news outlets, get bytemaster to do some interviews (Daily Decrypt to start?),  etc.  Then, as the product gets developed show screenshots, weekly updates, testnet videos.  I liked the fact that Eric Martindale of Blockstream was excited to help out.  He would totally validate a bitshares-bitcoin synergy on the bitcoin side.

What would be a good release date?  It should be something everyone can remember:  July 20ish, 2016, the bitcoin halving date!  Not sure how long development would take, but if it could be done sooner, the extra time could be used to fully test it.  If later, well let's get this sucker approved to get there!

[Erlich Bachman]

This is a critical consensus.

We need to know what our market would get the most use from immediately.

If we choose correctly, then we will get development funding for the next item on the list.

Get it?

We will have a better chance of reaping more future rewards as a community instead of begging uncle onceuponatime for another loan at infinite interest (no offense of course, I'm actually very grateful, but our ultimate goal is profitability)

[Akado]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

If BTS exploded w/ each coin added, I don't think witnesses would mind running more nodes. 

Seriously, though, if a worker proposal for sidechains gets approved, we could immediately send a press release to create a buzz around the bitcoin world.

Plus, we would be in the good graces of the bitcoin centric guys

[cylonmaker2053]

Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience

@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!

sounds good to me. i admit, sidechains are a bit over my head, but sound cool

[kingslanding]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

If BTS exploded w/ each coin added, I don't think witnesses would mind running more nodes. 

Seriously, though, if a worker proposal for sidechains gets approved, we could immediately send a press release to create a buzz around the bitcoin world.

[Akado]

Once we figure out how to implement sidechain for bitcoin, wouldnt in theory be much easier to do the same for other coins like litecoin and doge?

Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience

@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!

 
All the roadmap proposals are great once people are in the bitshares environment.  Sidechains is the only one that also actually gets people there.  These are the points (already made) that convinced me:

- Yes, sidechain 1st mover exposure would be huge.  Viral marketing without the cost.

- We'd be equivalent to any exchange out there but private (ie. stealth) and decentralized.  It would open up a market for whale traders who want to remain anonymous.

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

 

[mike623317]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

Agreed 

[noisy]

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

this may not by true... so do not take my words as final... but I think we could integrate with everycoin which has multisig. But... it will require to run full node of that client by all witnesses. So it would be difficult to run 20 full nodes of different coins. So (in my opinion) we should focus on:

* BTC
* ETH
* DOGE

[kingslanding]

Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience

@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!

 
All the roadmap proposals are great once people are in the bitshares environment.  Sidechains is the only one that also actually gets people there.  These are the points (already made) that convinced me:

- Yes, sidechain 1st mover exposure would be huge.  Viral marketing without the cost.

- We'd be equivalent to any exchange out there but private (ie. stealth) and decentralized.  It would open up a market for whale traders who want to remain anonymous.

- I can see adding sidechains for other major cryptos such as litecoin and peercoin.  Wouldn't it be possible now to trade amongst them as well?  Huge liquidity.

[Akado]

Me too, so why don't we start that before the bond market, and get some of that Ethereum pump while it's still strong.

The bond market still needs to simmer until the DEX liquidity reaches critical mass.

If we get some Ether pump, then we will have more $ for development.

So as I see it:

1. liquidity subsidy
2. rate limited fee options
3. Faster Ethere VM
4. Bond Market

Sidechains should be #3 or #4 depending on the amount of time it takes, assuming #1 and #2 are relatively fast to implement? We should have it before the bond market I guess. 100% collateral only sounds very attractive. Bond market just seems like a nice complement for that.

All of that together... seems pretty nice, hopefully it will get the use it deserves. But it's a nice combo there. You can now create MPAs with 100% collateral only, trade them with no fees and you even get paid for providing liquidity.

[giant middle finger]

Me too, so why don't we start that before the bond market, and get some of that Ethereum pump while it's still strong.

The bond market still needs to simmer until the DEX liquidity reaches critical mass.

If we get some Ether pump, then we will have more $ for development.

So as I see it:

1. liquidity subsidy
2. rate limited fee options
3. Faster Ethere VM
4. Bond Market

[Akado]

@Akado new thoughts about bond market is here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21700.0.html

BM also mentioned EVM in last week's mumble hangout.

@abit
Updated bond markets with the discussion post and added a little more description on Sidechains. Feel free to correct or suggest other description

EVM is already mentioned on the "others" section. Would like to have a brief description of it though, what it could accomplish and how it would help BitShares. Atm I only have that one sentence saying "Ethereum contracts but faster" which is what I got from the Mumble.

[noisy]

Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience

@cylonmaker2053 this should be our priority. This will bring liquidity to all BTC:XYZ exchanges. Right now to trade with BTC you need 200% collateral, what makes, that less BTC circulate in the network... and people do not like that. With sidechain (first bitcoin, ethereum next) we will have exactly 100% collateral. This will give us very big boost... not mentioning about fame an all news services, because bitshares will be first cruptocurrency which is sidechain of bitcoin!

[abit]

@Akado new thoughts about bond market is here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21700.0.html

BM also mentioned EVM in last week's mumble hangout.

[abit]

bump.
@jakub will you have time to update the sticky roadmap?

[Akado]

Can we put autobridging on the roadmap? It doesnt sound too hard to allow market pegged assets to be swapped via BTS. The impression of added liquidity that it would give to BTC:USD would be huge.

I guess so, though I would prefer if there was some more discussion first and see community input first. These ones seem to have some support already and some discussions, that's why I placed them there.

If you could start a thread it and we figured out a way of how to implement it, it's costs, etc and it was supported I would gladly add that on the OP. As of now it doesn't make much sense I think. I only recall one recent thread about it but it didn't seem to get much attention unfortunately.

[cylonmaker2053]

Maker/Taker <--
This is the first of many new proposals that don't cost the BTS stakeholders much of anything to get powerful new features.  In this case all the stakeholders must do is grant permission for a hardfork that implements a new feature.  100% of the new feature is self funded. 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20482.0
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

Rate Limited Fees <-- especially the weighting by transaction frequency
Free transactions proportional to user's stake and transaction frequency
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.0.html

Negative Fees <-- i support any plans to support liquidity
As a mean of Subsidizing Market Liquidity. Allows people to get paid for orders sitting on the order books for more than 24 hours for example. This is done to prevent abuse and people buying/selling to themselves. A worker is needed for a specific market. This worker will pay for this negative fees. I think this could be seen as a loan, we pay now, to increase liquidity which will reward BitShares later.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html

Sidechains <-- OK, but i'm more a fan of supporting anything to do with the trading experience
Sidechain of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin could be used as collateral for example.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html

Bond Market <-- VERY MUCH SUPPORT, esp idea of a Bitshares bond recycling fees as interest/dividends
Seems to have been delayed. In order to properly work needs deep market depth. We are not there yet.

This week's hangout covers these topics and I suggest you to listen to it (2016-02-19). Check it here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21540.msg280450.html#msg280450 thanks to @BitShares News

[speedy]

Can we put autobridging on the roadmap? It doesnt sound too hard to allow market pegged assets to be swapped via BTS. The impression of added liquidity that it would give to BTC:USD would be huge.

[Akado]

It seems after all these years BitShares finally has a roadmap  not one set in stone but at least we have something to show. Adding this to the website would be nice.

We finally have an objective. A path to follow. Something that can give people confidence of what comes next, hence all the positive discussions we've been having lately. BitShares was lacking that.

Btw @bytemaster if you could edit my post or even create a blog post if you manage to have the time, about the usage of sidechains with Bitcoin and Ethereum would be real nice. It seems very interesting! I would like to have more info on that and think it would be very useful. Moreover people from the outside would finally get the perception we are not in the "bubble" they think we are.

[bytemaster]

Thank you for summarizing the Road Map for everyone.

[Akado]

This is just a list of stuff that have been discussed lately, that may or may not be implemented and in no particular order, now that stealth seems to be done. Before any of this is implemented it needs shareholder approval. Some info, namely estimated costs have been taken from here https://bitshares.org/roadmap.html Note that these might have changed

Maker/Taker
This is the first of many new proposals that don't cost the BTS stakeholders much of anything to get powerful new features.  In this case all the stakeholders must do is grant permission for a hardfork that implements a new feature.  100% of the new feature is self funded. 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20482.0
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: 100000 BTS
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Rate Limited Fees
Free transactions proportional to user's stake and transaction frequency
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/02/10/How-to-build-a-decentralized-application-without-fees/
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.0.html
Status: Ongoing
Possible Developer: abit
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Negative Fees
As a mean of Subsidizing Market Liquidity. Allows people to get paid for orders sitting on the order books for more than 24 hours for example. This is done to prevent abuse and people buying/selling to themselves. A worker is needed for a specific market. This worker will pay for this negative fees. I think this could be seen as a loan, we pay now, to increase liquidity which will reward BitShares later.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Bitcoin Sidechain
Bitcoin could be used as collateral for example. It is speculated this would help improve liquidity as atm collateral for MPAs is currently ~200% and with Sidechains, collateral would be reduced to 100%. More MPAs on the market as its creation would have less restrictions.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: $200000
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: 3 months

Bond Market
Seems to have been delayed. In order to properly work needs deep market depth. We are not there yet.
Update: on the 2016-02-26 Hangout, @bytemaster mentioned he would start to work on a Bond Market proposal. Discussion here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21700.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: CNX
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: $60000
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Moonstone Wallet
Currently waiting to be released!
Practically no Fees, Integrated Market with External Exchanges, One Click Sign Up to External Exchanges, Secure Client Side Encryption, Live Updating Interface, Ability to make your Own Backups  - https://moonstone.io/
Status: Ongoing
Developer: Bitsapphire
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: Soon

MKR and DAI Focused BitShares Front End
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21778.msg283693.html#msg283693
Status: -
Possible Developer: Nexus
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Smartcoins Point Of Sale (POS) & BitShares Wallet for Android/iPhone
Wallet currently being submitted for approval on app stores
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20762.0.html
Status: Ongoing
Developer: BitShares Munich
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

MetaTrader4 Integration
The key feature of MT4 is the ability to buy, create and run your own trading bots - this is a massive source of liquidity and trading volume and there are vast libraries of such bots available on the metatrader marketplace https://www.mql5.com/en/market/mt4
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19816.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Autobridging
The BTC → BTS and BTS → USD can be synthesized into a synthetic BTC → USD. The real and synthetic BTC → USD order books can be be further synthesized into single combined order book.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21781.0.html
Status: Needs further discussion
Possible Developer: -
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: -

Bitshares Blockchain to be available in Microsoft Azure
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21115.msg282759.html#msg282759
Status: Ongoing
Developer: Fox
Estimated Cost of Development and Implementation: -
Estimated Time of Development and Implementation: Soon

Others:
- Ethereum Virtual Machine. Ethereum Contracts, but faster.


This week's hangout covers these topics and I suggest you to listen to it (2016-02-19). Check it here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21540.msg280450.html#msg280450 thanks to @BitShares News