[ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners

[Tuck Fheman]

to "sharedrop" on your brownies holders? !!!

If anyone plans on sharedropping to any token in the future, I sure hope they give at least a week's notice so people can pull their tokens off the bot wallet.

[liondani]

Perhaps I haven't won yet.  I intend to buy back brownies with some of my STEEM once all the infrastructure is in place to do it.  I need to know how much STEEM I personally end up with.

That means you have/will not vest all of your STEEMS to "sharedrop" on your brownies holders? !!!!  (selling "pumped" STEEMS to buy-back brownies)
That would definitely refresh a big part of our community !

[liondani]

Do you guys convert all steem to vested? The conversion starts to be quite ineffective

More effective than not converting. You may be getting less VESTS but that is just another way of saying that the mining reward as a percent of total STEEM is rapidly falling.  This is no different than any other crypto coin while the supply rapidly grows in percentage terms.

Except we speculate that STEEM will be pumped very high the first days on the exchanges (after about 3 weeks?) due to minimal supply of STEEMS. Only if you don't intend to keep them but only to dump them with a nice profit ...?
Dilution will be minimal compared to the huge demand....No?

[bytemaster]

Do you guys convert all steem to vested? The conversion starts to be quite ineffective

More effective than not converting. You may be getting less VESTS but that is just another way of saying that the mining reward as a percent of total STEEM is rapidly falling.  This is no different than any other crypto coin while the supply rapidly grows in percentage terms.

[hrossik]

Do you guys convert all steem to vested? The conversion starts to be quite ineffective

[bytemaster]

Who are these investors let in on the ground floor?  Were they Brownie holders?  I'm a brownie holder and didn't here anything about this opportunity.

 

YES what about brownies holders? I thought it is a BM asset... When bm wins brownies should rise! not?

Perhaps I haven't won yet.  I intend to buy back brownies with some of my STEEM once all the infrastructure is in place to do it.  I need to know how much STEEM I personally end up with.   

[liondani]

Who are these investors let in on the ground floor?  Were they Brownie holders?  I'm a brownie holder and didn't here anything about this opportunity.

 

YES what about brownies holders? I thought it is a BM asset... When bm wins brownies should rise! not?

[Empirical1.2]

SBD is an entirely different beast than BitAssets.  There is no shorting, no margin calls, and users cannot create it.

3. Interest on SBD is paid by creating new SBD from thin air and might never result in creation of STEEM

There are other reasons why Steem could not be built on BitShares:

1. It would need to be a separate asset due to its inflation scheme
2. bitshares is unable or unwilling to fund the development of something so speculative
3. bitshares is better served being an exchange and integrating with STEEM via a side chain

....

Thanks, I know you mentioned it wasn't really possible on BTS previously and I appreciate the detailed explanation.

While SBD is vastly different, it is still potentially a BitUSD competitor. There are no/low TX fees on BTS so I think we would derive little benefit from being a sidechain but the USD that bootstraps first or becomes really popular will make the backing asset very valuable.

Interesting...

Some additional (long) thoughts on the project:

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting...

Now the question is will bytemaster's strategy work, or will it cause the Bitcoin community to treat this DAC like a pariah and stubbornly refuse to use it while yelling out words like "instamine." I can't wait to find out.

Is this already mostly coded?

Everything I described in my post about STEEM was from my review of the existing code in GitHub. So, yes.

If so can it be forked onto BTS or a separate DAC with an allocation strategy that greatly favours BTS holders?

The BTS SuperDAC was created with the intention of forking competitors where possible/valuable and this seems like such a scenario given it's based on BTS compatible code?

I was going to say yes, but apparently as bytemaster mentioned previously in the thread, STEEM is released under a non-free license. Regardless of licensing issues, let me procede with why it may not make sense to bring SBD with interest into BitShares, which I believe is what you are mostly concerned about.

The problem with the SBD asset is that it forces all STEEM holders to back it, which means a risk of significant STEEM inflation to cover the price stability of SBD. We would not want to force all BTS holders to back an SBD equivalent on BitShares. Furthermore, users cannot create as much SBD as they wish on STEEM (which I think is good because that limits the liability of STEEM holders). That works fine for its intended purpose as rewards for content creator and curators, but I would say for something like BitUSD, our existing mechanism of borrowing with collateral makes more sense.

Thanks for the reply.

Ignoring the licensing issue for the time being. Could we potentially create something resembling a STEEM2 asset on BTS that is sharedropped 80% onto BTS shareholders (&/or pay royalties to BTS) with a corresponding SBD? It would have all the properties of STEEM & would be backing SBD2 on BTS but it would have been mostly sharedropped onto BTS shareholders.

My only thinking is shareholders will be unhappy about a competing USD created by CNX even though BM has justified his position and I also think STEEM's launch and initial distribution will be unpopular so combined with BTS's size, network effect, community & existing infrastructure  we may be able to outcompete it & existing BTS sharheholders will gain that value.

[bytemaster]

Who are these investors let in on the ground floor?  Were they Brownie holders?  I'm a brownie holder and didn't here anything about this opportunity.

Companies in the US are not allowed publicly solicity investments. Startups are forced to raise capital from private sources.

I haven't forgotten about Brownie Holders.   

[lil_jay890]

Who are these investors let in on the ground floor?  Were they Brownie holders?  I'm a brownie holder and didn't here anything about this opportunity.

[arhag]

Interesting...

Some additional (long) thoughts on the project:

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting...

Now the question is will bytemaster's strategy work, or will it cause the Bitcoin community to treat this DAC like a pariah and stubbornly refuse to use it while yelling out words like "instamine." I can't wait to find out.

Is this already mostly coded?

Everything I described in my post about STEEM was from my review of the existing code in GitHub. So, yes.

If so can it be forked onto BTS or a separate DAC with an allocation strategy that greatly favours BTS holders?

The BTS SuperDAC was created with the intention of forking competitors where possible/valuable and this seems like such a scenario given it's based on BTS compatible code?

I was going to say yes, but apparently as bytemaster mentioned previously in the thread, STEEM is released under a non-free license. Regardless of licensing issues, let me procede with why it may not make sense to bring SBD with interest into BitShares, which I believe is what you are mostly concerned about.

The problem with the SBD asset is that it forces all STEEM holders to back it, which means a risk of significant STEEM inflation to cover the price stability of SBD. We would not want to force all BTS holders to back an SBD equivalent on BitShares. Furthermore, users cannot create as much SBD as they wish on STEEM (which I think is good because that limits the liability of STEEM holders). That works fine for its intended purpose as rewards for content creator and curators, but I would say for something like BitUSD, our existing mechanism of borrowing with collateral makes more sense.

Regarding interest on market-pegged assets generally, let me just add a few comments on my personal/philosophical views about it. If I remember correctly I believe you are a proponent of paying yield on BitUSD. I don't agree with that unless it was done in a very different way than what was done previously due to yield harvesting. First, I disagree with the idea of BTS workers paying for the yield. This means I also disagree with the SBD interest mechanism being used in BitShares since ultimately it means the core asset holders (STEEM in the case of the Steem DAC, BTS in the case of BitShares) are paying for it through dilution. I think any smartcoin yield we may choose to have should come from the smartcoin borrowers. Second, due to yield harvesting, it only makes sense to pay yield to smartcoin holders if the instantaneous dynamic interest rate is always less than the current smallest interest rate paid by smartcoin borrowers. The way yield payouts would need to be calculated would also need to be more sophisticated than what was done previously with BitAsset yields. I could go into more depth on the technical details of how such a smartcoin yield system could work, but I think I won't bother doing that here and now. The short version of it is that the smartcoin manager would provide a dynamic feed of smartcoin holder interest rate, smartcoin borrower interest rate, and a smartcoin borrower max interest rate; and borrowers would have to pay a dynamic interest rate (with a ceiling set to the maximum interest rate from the feed at the time of borrowing which they implicitly agreed to by going through with the borrowing) and smartcoin holders would get paid a dynamic interest rate set to the smaller of the feed's smartcoin holder interest rate and the lowest interest rate paid by the smartcoin borrowers at the time.

[bytemaster]

In many ways BTS has already benefited from the work done on Steem.  I have been systematically taking Steem innovations behind the scene and attempting to bridge them into BitShares (with a lot of resistance from some Steem investors).

1. Free Transactions - invented for Steem but offered to BTS first
2. Liquidity Rewards - invented for Steem but suggested to BTS first
3. Vesting Rewards  - presented to BitShares first, but rejected

The implementation of Liquidity Rewards in Steem actually uses an algorithm and ideas not suggested in the corresponding thread on BTS.

Unfortunately, BTS stakeholder voting is unwilling to fund the work necessary to implement these hard forks, let alone an entirely new wallet interface required by Steem.

SBD is an entirely different beast than BitAssets.  There is no shorting, no margin calls, and users cannot create it.

3. Interest on SBD is paid by creating new SBD from thin air and might never result in creation of STEEM

There are other reasons why Steem could not be built on BitShares:

1. It would need to be a separate asset due to its inflation scheme
2. bitshares is unable or unwilling to fund the development of something so speculative
3. bitshares is better served being an exchange and integrating with STEEM via a side chain
4. The backing of SBD cannot be BTS due to inflation
5. BTS protocol has historically been shifting with frequent hardforks, Steem aims to be a stable protocol with perhaps a single upgrade to add blinded transfers in the distant future.
6. We wanted to make some fundamental improvements to the transaction types
7. It would cost much more to build Steem on BitShares than start from scratch
8. we would have had to publicly debate the entire platform undermining marketing objectives and increasing costs.

In effect, STEEM would have ended up a "blockchain within a blockchain", users would have been forced to hold BTS and STEEM so they could transact, and the only value STEEM would gain is being natively listed on the BTS exchange. 

Building Steem on BitShares makes as much sense as CounterParty building on Bitcoin.

A objective and rational investor choosing to fund the development of Steem would have a hard time justifying building it on BitShares.

This reality is true of every DAPP and applies to Ethereum as much as it applies to BitShares. 

The conclusion is that BitShares needs to be a DAPP that directly serves a particular market and focus on growing that market rather than attempting to merge everything. 

The other conclusion is that for BitShares to attract entrepreneurs to build DAPPS on BTS it will require much higher levels of dilution than BTS is authorized even with 100% dilution. So perhaps we should consider how to empower users of BitShares with the features it currently has.

[Empirical1.2]

Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?

Not yet to my knowledge.

I think it may be advisable to share-drop on BTS though because it seems to be a method for bootstrapping a competiting BitUSD which is what shareholders feared about VOTE DAC and why many agreed to the BTS merger.

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10148.0.html

I'm not sure yet, but it also seems like STEEM may be using dilution to fund an interest rate bonus...

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting.

Though unlikely, it's possibly similar to a concept I've been pushing to benefit BitUSD, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html which BM hasn't ackowledged in the forum and only a few months ago believed wouldn't work.

That's $365 000 a year of dilution.  That could be  on $7 500 000 worth of BitUSD.
Even with a lot of yield harvesting that would rapidly make BTS the undisputed Crypto USD market leader.

Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.

I don't know what the SBD liquidity subsidies are but they could also be the best combo from ideas formulated from the BitUSD liquidity thread, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.195.html

So SBD is potentially a competing BitUSD using concepts that could have helped bootstrap BitUSD or a USD on BTS.

So I don't think STEEM will necessarily be popular with BTS shareholders & given that they've intentionally violated a lot of the crypto communities cultural expectations they're unlikely to be popular with them either.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.  Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.

We''ll have to wait to learn more but I think STEEM/SBD could be a BitUSD competitor and we should potentially be looking at options, forking/other to compete with it.

So your saying that Steem is a direct competitor with BTS?

This is very confusing... Is this CNX's new project/chain that we paid to prevent during the merger?  Little did we know that we were actually funding the competition of BTS.

Now do we dump BTS for Steem or does Steem work with BTS?  It doesn't sound like it will be sharedrop.

IMO, it seems SBD is a direct competitor with BitUSD and STEEM is a competitor with BTS in much the same way VOTE was. (In the case of VOTE there was an additional voting element provided by Adam/FMV in this case there's potentially an additional social media platform element provided by Ned.)

Edit: In terms of investing. You may be forced to hedge though my opinion is the way they've chosen to launch STEEM may severely limit its potential so we should definitely look at forking/incorporating the good elements into BTS as the market may attribute much more value to them on BTS.

Edit 2: Looks like this has been moved to random discussion...

[lil_jay890]

Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?

Not yet to my knowledge.

I think it may be advisable to share-drop on BTS though because it seems to be a method for bootstrapping a competiting BitUSD which is what shareholders feared about VOTE DAC and why many agreed to the BTS merger.

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10148.0.html

I'm not sure yet, but it also seems like STEEM may be using dilution to fund an interest rate bonus...

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting.

Though unlikely, it's possibly similar to a concept I've been pushing to benefit BitUSD, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html which BM hasn't ackowledged in the forum and only a few months ago believed wouldn't work.

That's $365 000 a year of dilution.  That could be  on $7 500 000 worth of BitUSD.
Even with a lot of yield harvesting that would rapidly make BTS the undisputed Crypto USD market leader.

Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.

I don't know what the SBD liquidity subsidies are but they could also be the best combo from ideas formulated from the BitUSD liquidity thread, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.195.html

So SBD is potentially a competing BitUSD using concepts that could have helped bootstrap BitUSD or a USD on BTS.

So I don't think STEEM will necessarily be popular with BTS shareholders & given that they've intentionally violated a lot of the crypto communities cultural expectations they're unlikely to be popular with them either.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.  Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.

We''ll have to wait to learn more but I think STEEM/SBD could be a BitUSD competitor and we should potentially be looking at options, forking/other to compete with it.

So your saying that Steem is a direct competitor with BTS?

This is very confusing... Is this CNX's new project/chain that we paid to prevent during the merger?  Little did we know that we were actually funding the competition of BTS.

Now do we dump BTS for Steem or does Steem work with BTS?  It doesn't sound like it will be sharedrop.

[Empirical1.2]

Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?

Not yet to my knowledge.

I think it may be advisable to share-drop on BTS though because it seems to be a method for bootstrapping a competiting BitUSD which is what shareholders feared about VOTE DAC and why many agreed to the BTS merger.

There are many problems we need to resolve as a community:

1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.

My Proposal:

1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares

There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit  (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us.  Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10148.0.html

I'm not sure yet, but it also seems like STEEM may be using dilution to fund an interest rate bonus...

The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting.

Though unlikely, it's possibly similar to a concept I've been pushing to benefit BitUSD, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html which BM hasn't ackowledged in the forum and only a few months ago believed wouldn't work.

That's $365 000 a year of dilution.  That could be  on $7 500 000 worth of BitUSD.
Even with a lot of yield harvesting that would rapidly make BTS the undisputed Crypto USD market leader.

Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.

I don't know what the SBD liquidity subsidies are but they could also be the best combo from ideas formulated from the BitUSD liquidity thread, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.195.html

So SBD is potentially a competing BitUSD using concepts that could have helped bootstrap BitUSD or a USD on BTS.

So I don't think STEEM will necessarily be popular with BTS shareholders & given that they've intentionally violated a lot of the crypto communities cultural expectations they're unlikely to be popular with them either.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.  Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.

We''ll have to wait to learn more but I think STEEM/SBD could be a BitUSD competitor and we should potentially be looking at options, forking/other to compete with it.