Thought Experiment

[Fox]

My traditional bank recently sent me two $50 Visa gift cards at 3 months and 1 year (if memory serves accurate) to keep a higher balance in savings with them.  Further, I had to set an auto deposit to fund the account on an increasing basis.

Takeaway: Today I have a higher balance in savings with this bank and continue to utilize an auto deposit monthly to increase my savings.  They rewarded me for learning how to save in their bank.

Perhaps this model can be adopted/modified by a partner willing to invest in BitShares users.

[emailtooaj]

IMO,  along with some SmartCoins there should be a mix of "ACTIVE" UIA's (such as META, OPENPOS, Sharebits...etc etc etc.) but most of the weight (80+% or so) should be towards SmartCoins. 
I just think it'd be a good way to "indirectly expose" potential new users to other facets of the BitShares Eco-System.

[tonyk]

50%  IOU.USD 50%bitAssets

The bitassets are shorted by them themself and given to the customers, the 50% IOU.USD kind of offsets the 200% collateral required.

[Stan]

I've seen a lot of great discussions about how to jump start our markets using, for example, worker funds or whatever.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this angle, postulated by a certain steely-eyed affiliate marketing friend of mine:

Suppose some big institution had a business model needing lots of bitAssets that justified paying customer acquisition costs of $50 per customer.   They consider giving away a BitShares wallet full of $50 worth of some mix of digital assets hoping this will stimulate our economy to produce the vast quantities of bitAssets they need for their nefarious plan.  Suppose there was no limit to how many customers they were willing to do that for (i.e. each customer was worth significantly more than $50 to them).

What should the wallet contain?

I'm looking for deeper thinking than just "a nice basket of bitAssets, some BTS, and the institution's own redeemable ACME.USD coin."

The mere act of purchasing that basket for an unlimited number of users is going to perturb the markets in unpredictable ways.

Offering to buy just bitAssets doesn't work because there aren't enough of them anyway.

Buying just BTS would presumably generate initial buy pressure but that would quickly be offset by sell pressure as people collected their wallets and dumped the free BTS back on the market.  It would do nothing for bitAsset liquidity.

Buying just BTS and putting them in a vesting balance would presumably generate an upward bias in growth of BTS price as BTS were locked up.  This would presumably incentivize  people to start shorting bitAssets into existence in increasing numbers, assuming there was enough demand for them.

The demand would come from adding BitAssets to the mix would mean the institution would have to buy from the shorters.

Thus, what would be the optimum strategy for increasing bitAsset liquidity while still calling attention to their new IOU.USD asset which they would like to include in the mix?

(Don't get excited.  This is only a hypothetical thought experiment for use in business development discussions if there is a good plan that makes sense.)

Is there an optimal steady-state process?