[Poll] REAL GOLD BLOCKCHAIN?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

Doing a bit of market research are we? Just where in the world could a business like that store such reserves safely?

Perhaps as you say this poll / thread is all a matter of fun. Regardless, donkeypong has made the best contributions to this thread, and I agree that "No" is the best answer. The failure of Cryptosmith to make even a single sale in the 2 months of operation before Ryan decided to "run with the gold"  is another piece of evidence against this idea.

As for Digx I have nothing. I never heard of them myself.

I understand you're position since you were so close to all that.

Nonetheless.. would you characterize Bitshares today based on what it was last year? I think the capacity and capability to have a real asset backed chain certainly is.

Also.. how that was done with cryptosmith I would define as done COMPLETELY wrong... he could have just made off with the gold the same way he made off with the money. Wrong on all levels.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I don't think @Empirical1.2 is comparing the prospects or viability of Digix vs. LISK or AUGUR.  I think he was just saying the supposed crowdsale wasn't truly open to the public, that it appears to have been quickly bought up by large investors who were in-the-know and ready with large chunks of funds.  He is probably right.  Although I think what that mostly says is that Digix was probably beyond the stage of needing to do a crowd sale. 

As for LISK, by calling it a "pipe dream" you are not giving it nearly enough credit.  Fact is, LISK is much further along than ETH is.  It has some real advantages over ETH and is a more complete solution.  A lot of people are going to be very surprised by how well LISK does.

Sorry but that's just how I refer to anything that has nothing but a website with no ground work done yet behind it going after money. It's nothing negative about any particular said project.. it's just a characterization of where they were starting from. Thinking on it a little more Lisk is derived from an existing blockchain so perhaps they had something showable.

Bottomline.. the crowdsale that was fashioned more favorably for more than just crypto was wildly more successful than those that fashioned themselves to ONLY crypto.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Exactly they're a centralised entity who were clearly able to raise funds within hours from a handful of institutional investors so they didn't need to crowdfund. It comes across as a pre-orchestrated investment event that was either done as a legal workaround or because as a blockchain based service they think they will benefit from the perception of being crowdfunded like BitReserve. They also unlike most put a cap on funds raised.

Their crowdfunding thread is all of 5 pages long and 1/2 those comments are negative & I can't find one thread with lots of interest for this one year old mature amazing project... I think it has potential but as you say it's clearly attracted a handful of institutional investors vs. the decentralised crowd at this stage which is why I don't think it will be recognised as a valid crowdfund by the market and in the records.

(& I do see it has potential. I think I answered no to your poll originally but while not long term I actually could see myself using a gold backed crypto-currency for brief periods depending on how it was done.)

No.. I think you are conflating some ideas here. Before doing a crowdfund of course every single one of them does a little pre-marketing... nothing wrong with that. The fact that because they are doxable just made it MUCH easier for anybody with real money to invest. Again this is also about physical assets.. soooo very different from sandbox ideas... although the way they plan to operate I admit is very sandbox in itself.

Crypto ventures the way they are presented and as they are structured often have no semblance to how deals everyday are done in the rest of the world.

People everywhere are still shaking their heads over how so many of these offers raised as much as they did.

[davidpbrown]

Solving the problem of bridging from a cryptocurrency to a real world asset, would be a HUGE achievement and that requiring at least a location and law that would give people confidence that law would be enforced and asset audited and real world transfers that would occur.. otherwise you just have a house of cards==The Fed demanding people trust that they have real gold bars while issuing worthless paper.

The second challenge, beyond simple volume of asset, is what I understand colour coins are useful for - individual satoshi of a currency being uniquely bound to a unique instance of a real world asset - like a house or a car. That would be then another order of magnitude HUGE.

First step wait for any cyptocurrency to be acknowledged widely; second step see pegged currencies the like that BitShares does better than any other I've seen; then perhaps those above. So, yes ..

[Thom]

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

Doing a bit of market research are we? Just where in the world could a business like that store such reserves safely?

Perhaps as you say this poll / thread is all a matter of fun. Regardless, donkeypong has made the best contributions to this thread, and I agree that "No" is the best answer. The failure of Cryptosmith to make even a single sale in the 2 months of operation before Ryan decided to "run with the gold"  is another piece of evidence against this idea.

As for Digx I have nothing. I never heard of them myself.

[tbone]

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

I don't think @Empirical1.2 is comparing the prospects or viability of Digix vs. LISK or AUGUR.  I think he was just saying the supposed crowdsale wasn't truly open to the public, that it appears to have been quickly bought up by large investors who were in-the-know and ready with large chunks of funds.  He is probably right.  Although I think what that mostly says is that Digix was probably beyond the stage of needing to do a crowd sale. 

As for LISK, by calling it a "pipe dream" you are not giving it nearly enough credit.  Fact is, LISK is much further along than ETH is.  It has some real advantages over ETH and is a more complete solution.  A lot of people are going to be very surprised by how well LISK does. 
 

[Empirical1.2]

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Exactly they're a centralised entity who were clearly able to raise funds within hours from a handful of institutional investors so they didn't need to crowdfund. It comes across as a pre-orchestrated investment event that was either done as a legal workaround or because as a blockchain based service they think they will benefit from the perception of being crowdfunded like BitReserve. They also unlike most put a cap on funds raised.

Their crowdfunding thread is all of 5 pages long and 1/2 those comments are negative & I can't find one thread with lots of interest for this one year old mature amazing project... I think it has potential but as you say it's clearly attracted a handful of institutional investors vs. the decentralised crowd at this stage which is why I don't think it will be recognised as a valid crowdfund by the market and in the records.

(& I do see it has potential. I think I answered no to your poll originally but while not long term I actually could see myself using a gold backed crypto-currency for brief periods depending on how it was done.)

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

[fav]

you could join digix as a vault. since digix will be traded on dex it's a possible win-win

[Empirical1.2]

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ...)

It was fully transparent so not sure why you consider it suspicious. There are lots of ETH early birds who've made tons of money and are looking at ways of diversifying while supporting ethererum, that's the easiest answer to why it took off like it did. The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

I personally participated and I setup my ETH wallet for the very first time that same day. Only issues I had were the slow syncing times took around 4 hours using Mist.

Sent fra min MotoG3 via Tapatalk

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Digix clearly doesn't have even a minuscule fraction of the interest LISK/Augur had/has & yet it supposedly raised the same amount of money in <1% of the time from a wide investing audience?

Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?

You've positively affirmed my contention and Liondani's concern in your response.

The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

So we can confirm that they didn't raise $5 million from thousands of small individual investors in a traditional crowdsale sense like LISK and Augur did but rose the majority from people purchasing 5% equity plus, with their money ready to go within hours of launch.

Possibly a handful of ETH rich whales as you speculate, possibly even one or two who broke their orders up into smaller purchases but more likely just the owners/investors in the underlying Digix company. (Slightly similar to STEEMIT, setting it up to become the majority owner of STEEM.) Or similar to BitReserve who claimed to have the second largest digital crowdfund in history but actually the vast majority went to a single investor....

Bitreserve has become the second largest crowdfunded digital currency company by hitting US$9.5 million in a public Series-B investment round

http://cointelegraph.com/news/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector

But you don't see them on this list,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects

Similarly given the evidence it's unlikely Digix will be recognised as a 'valid' crowdsale.

[svk]

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ...)

It was fully transparent so not sure why you consider it suspicious. There are lots of ETH early birds who've made tons of money and are looking at ways of diversifying while supporting ethererum, that's the easiest answer to why it took off like it did. The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

I personally participated and I setup my ETH wallet for the very first time that same day. Only issues I had were the slow syncing times took around 4 hours using Mist.

Sent fra min MotoG3 via Tapatalk

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

A nuclear bunker full of gold and a 24/7 webcam on it to provide proof of reserves? Call it the Fort Knox Webcam and you'll have plenty of takers.

Me, I prefer to carry gold on my person. They can have it if they can get it off me.

I can't argue with that!

Although the point of this fun poll was just to see what people thought of this.. its not specifically about the bunker.

[Vizzini]

A nuclear bunker full of gold and a 24/7 webcam on it to provide proof of reserves? Call it the Fort Knox Webcam and you'll have plenty of takers.

Me, I prefer to carry gold on my person. They can have it if they can get it off me.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I'm not sure how they implemented it, but uphold.com also provides gold- (and silver, platinum, and palladium)- backed crypto assets which they claim are 100% backed by physical assets.

https://support.uphold.com/hc/en-us/articles/204329985-Does-Uphold-hold-real-precious-metals-or-precious-metal-e-g-gold-or-silver-shares-ETFs-

This not only lacks in details but has zero transparency.

[destenson]

I'm not sure how they implemented it, but uphold.com also provides gold- (and silver, platinum, and palladium)- backed crypto assets which they claim are 100% backed by physical assets.

[Empirical1.2]

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ...)

If you look at LISK for example they raised around $6 million recently and that took a while, you can also see from their thread that the level of interest from a wide group is extremely high. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.0

Also Augur raised a similar amount but it took a while and there was also a high degree of interest, their Youtube video has over 200k views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yegyih591Jo

Digix clearly doesn't have even a minuscule fraction of the interest LISK/Augur had/has & yet it supposedly raised the same amount of money in <1% of the time from a wide investing audience?

It's an interesting project but no I don't believe Digix genuinely entered the top 20 highest crowdfunded projects in history in the space of 14 hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects It doesn't compute unfortunately.

[giant middle finger]

My answer is "no", I don't think gold is needed here. I could not find a poll response that was appropriate for me to choose. Crypto is not perfect and there would be much to gain from backing it with real assets, but I don't see gold as delivering a lot more value in a way that could help one of these businesses much.

First, gold bugs are mostly suspicious sorts. Average age is probably around 50. They don't even trust paper money or electronic money, so even though we trust crypto, it's a big stretch -- most of them won't. I know people here think there's a natural libertarian overlap, but I think converts are difficult to attain this way and that the overlap is therefore overblown -- you won't attract that many of them and the ones you do will cost you too much in terms of time/effort/money.

Second, storing/transporting/insuring gold is costly and it only makes sense if you have lots of volume. Until then, it's hard to buy/sell gold for anything near its spot price.

Third, maybe gold is as good as an asset gets, but it's still deeply flawed. Its price is heavily manipulated by big powers (isn't that one reason many people turned to crypto?). It's not as good of a store of value as it was in previous generations; a lot of younger people don't see it as so important as previous generations did. I still hold gold just as I hold crypto. I think (there's a good chance that) its value will stand the test of time. But I don't think it's a good basis for this kind of business.

Just so I understand.. what do you mean in regards to 'this kind of business' specifically?

Why, the "human value business" silly

When you buy a stock or coin, what are you buying?

The potential value to be created by that community, that said, I voted to suppport your gold vault camera/physical perimeter 24/7 live feed backed Golden Ticket manufacturing facility.  Why? Because it provides value to a quite large group of people who are looking for exactly this level of transparency in their bank or trust. 

[liondani]

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ...)

[Empirical1.2]

One of the issues in the case of Digix is what would happen in the event of a Digix bankruptcy?

In terms of existing competitors there's BitGold.com but presumably they need KYC.

There is also Xaurum which I believe is backing/attempts to back it's units with gold in some way. (They also have the ticker symbol XAU which is pretty good.) http://xaurum.aurumproject.io/

heck.. the crowdfund that was expected to go a month that sold out in 14 hrs is a pretty clear indication of what others think about this. Referring to DigiX of course.

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

[btswolf]

It's nice to have, but personally I have no use case for such a service.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I added another response that I think expresses your position and possibly others.

There are no statements in the poll that I agree with. A simple 'no' would be better. I just see a lot of reasons why your suggestion could involve a lot of work and expense for little real gain. But hey, if you can make this work, then I'm not against it. Here's an idea: why not run your survey outside of BitShares and see what other potential customers think? This place can be a bit of an echo chamber.

I added no..

Thanks for the suggestion .. this is really just more for fun to see how the Bitshares community thinks of this. .. I already know how some other segments respond to this... heck.. the crowdfund that was expected to go a month that sold out in 14 hrs is a pretty clear indication of what others think about this. Referring to DigiX of course.

Thanks for your input.

[donkeypong]

I added another response that I think expresses your position and possibly others.

There are no statements in the poll that I agree with. A simple 'no' would be better. I just see a lot of reasons why your suggestion could involve a lot of work and expense for little real gain. But hey, if you can make this work, then I'm not against it. Here's an idea: why not run your survey outside of BitShares and see what other potential customers think? This place can be a bit of an echo chamber.

[donkeypong]

Just so I understand.. what do you mean in regards to 'this kind of business' specifically?

I understand it as crypto backed by gold or some interaction that uses one to add credibility to the other, but perhaps you've thought further ahead than I have.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

My answer is "no", I don't think gold is needed here. I could not find a poll response that was appropriate for me to choose. Crypto is not perfect and there would be much to gain from backing it with real assets, but I don't see gold as delivering a lot more value in a way that could help one of these businesses much.

I added another response that I think expresses your position and possibly others.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

My answer is "no", I don't think gold is needed here. I could not find a poll response that was appropriate for me to choose. Crypto is not perfect and there would be much to gain from backing it with real assets, but I don't see gold as delivering a lot more value in a way that could help one of these businesses much.

First, gold bugs are mostly suspicious sorts. Average age is probably around 50. They don't even trust paper money or electronic money, so even though we trust crypto, it's a big stretch -- most of them won't. I know people here think there's a natural libertarian overlap, but I think converts are difficult to attain this way and that the overlap is therefore overblown -- you won't attract that many of them and the ones you do will cost you too much in terms of time/effort/money.

Second, storing/transporting/insuring gold is costly and it only makes sense if you have lots of volume. Until then, it's hard to buy/sell gold for anything near its spot price.

Third, maybe gold is as good as an asset gets, but it's still deeply flawed. Its price is heavily manipulated by big powers (isn't that one reason many people turned to crypto?). It's not as good of a store of value as it was in previous generations; a lot of younger people don't see it as so important as previous generations did. I still hold gold just as I hold crypto. I think (there's a good chance that) its value will stand the test of time. But I don't think it's a good basis for this kind of business.

Just so I understand.. what do you mean in regards to 'this kind of business' specifically?

[donkeypong]

My answer is "no", I don't think gold is needed here. I could not find a poll response that was appropriate for me to choose. Crypto is not perfect and there would be much to gain from backing it with real assets, but I don't see gold as delivering a lot more value in a way that could help one of these businesses much.

First, gold bugs are mostly suspicious sorts. Average age is probably around 50. They don't even trust paper money or electronic money, so even though we trust crypto, it's a big stretch -- most of them won't. I know people here think there's a natural libertarian overlap, but I think converts are difficult to attain this way and that the overlap is therefore overblown -- you won't attract that many of them and the ones you do will cost you too much in terms of time/effort/money.

Second, storing/transporting/insuring gold is costly and it only makes sense if you have lots of volume. Until then, it's hard to buy/sell gold for anything near its spot price.

Third, maybe gold is as good as an asset gets, but it's still deeply flawed. Its price is heavily manipulated by big powers (isn't that one reason many people turned to crypto?). It's not as good of a store of value as it was in previous generations; a lot of younger people don't see it as so important as previous generations did. I still hold gold just as I hold crypto. I think (there's a good chance that) its value will stand the test of time. But I don't think it's a good basis for this kind of business.

[fuzzy]

just going to throw this out there...

yes, (duh)

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This would mean instead of backing assets against a crypto-currency like BTS, there is a real potential to create assets backed by REAL Gold!

The word "instead" is wrong here. Assets backed by BTS are awesome. Assets backed by real gold are awesome too. Assets backed by commodities other than gold may be more awesome than assets backed by gold in many circumstances. Give me all of these awesome assets.

Fair enough. In most discussions I have with others when it comes to backing assets I have always heard a preference towards other things other than BTS. I personally have no issue like that.. but it always comes up when the fact that BTS itself is a penny stock of sorts is the value of what is backing assets. I can remember how not to long ago people even in this forum were losing their minds over the prospect of BTC backing assets.

I like how you think though.. derivative the planet!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

Perhaps that is a reason why crypto could be considered superior to gold? During the transition, bitgold and bitsilver could play a huge role in bringing everyone in.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

[yvv]

This would mean instead of backing assets against a crypto-currency like BTS, there is a real potential to create assets backed by REAL Gold!

The word "instead" is wrong here. Assets backed by BTS are awesome. Assets backed by real gold are awesome too. Assets backed by commodities other than gold may be more awesome than assets backed by gold in many circumstances. Give me all of these awesome assets.

[Ben Mason]

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

Perhaps that is a reason why crypto could be considered superior to gold? During the transition, bitgold and bitsilver could play a huge role in bringing everyone in.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

The problem is that e-gold got run out of business and criminally charged for just such a service many years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

Wow they were surrounded with all kinds of nastiness.

For the sake of the poll lets just assume that today we have the technology and the means to do this the right way.

Fantasy come true.. or nightmare incarnate?

[onceuponatime]

The problem is that e-gold got run out of business and criminally charged for just such a service many years ago.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

GOLD

Just a simple question. We all saw the DigiX crowdsale not to long ago. Their whole thing is about gold on the blockchain. Regardless of weather or not you agree with how they are executing that, assume for the sake of this poll that the way the gold was stored was transparent, secure, and provable.

This would mean instead of backing assets against a crypto-currency like BTS, there is a real potential to create assets backed by REAL Gold!

So I am just curious if the realism of all this strikes a cord with everyone, or if you all feel that speculative prices of crypto-currencies is part of your love of crypto.

Do you think something like this could potentially create a gold currency that more people would want to adopt beyond crypto? (for discussion)

To be clear, this is not about bitGOLD, this is about real gold being stored somewhere in a secure manner with a crypto-currency counterparty representing that exact gold on the blockchain is available to buy/sell/trade/collateralize tuck away in your pillow via paper wallet etc.

Also this poll has nothing to do with if this would be launched on Bitshares or not. Just interested in the core concept.


Ready? .. Go!!!!ld!