Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016

[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