What bitshares should learn from steem

[nmywn]

When you pay workers with bitAssets, you dilute bitAssets, not BTS. With 1B BTS collateral, the reserve will not be margin called in nearest years, and when it will, it will not be a tragic event. It will adjust collateral ratio and cause some BTS dilution. The reserve will increase due to fees collected, so more collateral will become available with time. Eventually, of course, DEX will need to dilute some BTS to adjust debt. Forced settlements will partially do it, and there are other ways to do it.

We could even pay dev-teams with dev-team issued asset. Worker should have reasonably short expiration time and be able to buy x bts worth of shares from market and pay them to to the issuer. This way devs taking the risk of failed project same as voters. Dev teams could start with little projects like: "i'll fix orderbook for ya" If we happy with their job he can offer another "little job" to keep his shares price up.

[yvv]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

That's true, active markets for the bitAssets could make it work.

there is always dilution when we pay worker from reserve pool, either using BTS or smartcoin.
however this is not a problem, we need to accept the dilution if it is really necessary.

the problem is how to design and manage the whole process.
if we want to collate the BTS in reserve pool to generate smartcoin, then how to prevent the position from being margin called? how to manage the position by selling some BTS while it is at higher price and reduce the debt? it is easy for an individual to do this for his own account, but for a public account, a good process must be designed to ensure fairness and continuability.

and I don't think we need to enable worker to "select what bitasset as they like", that will bring more complex, we can select bitCNY or bitUSD as the paying currency, and currently seems bitCNY is a little more appropriate because of the liquidity and pegging exactness.

When you pay workers with bitAssets, you dilute bitAssets, not BTS. With 1B BTS collateral, the reserve will not be margin called in nearest years, and when it will, it will not be a tragic event. It will adjust collateral ratio and cause some BTS dilution. The reserve will increase due to fees collected, so more collateral will become available with time. Eventually, of course, DEX will need to dilute some BTS to adjust debt. Forced settlements will partially do it, and there are other ways to do it.

[yvv]

Dilution would only come from forced settlements.

they will force settle for sure because they need to eat and pay rent .
They said it out right : They didn't sell BTS because of they think it would drop . They need to sell because they need to pay rent and eat .

So it doesn't matter if you give them BTS or BitUSD , they will need to sell it to FIAT and cause actual dilution every month .

It's still the same thing . And it will cause the false sense of "less dilution" and led to more dilution .

No, it is not the same thing. Workers will try to sell their bitAssets on the market first, and this will not cause BTS dilution. They will force settle only if market liquidity is low, and the least collateralized positions will be settled first. The similar scheme worked in steem with SD before the hack. We have a nice experiment done by them.

[bitcrab]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD  or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

That's true, active markets for the bitAssets could make it work.

there is always dilution when we pay worker from reserve pool, either using BTS or smartcoin.
however this is not a problem, we need to accept the dilution if it is really necessary.

the problem is how to design and manage the whole process.
if we want to collate the BTS in reserve pool to generate smartcoin, then how to prevent the position from being margin called? how to manage the position by selling some BTS while it is at higher price and reduce the debt? it is easy for an individual to do this for his own account,   but for a public account, a good process must be designed to ensure fairness and continuability.

and I don't think we need to enable worker to "select what bitasset as they like", that will bring more complex, we can select bitCNY or bitUSD as the paying currency, and currently seems bitCNY is a little more appropriate because of the liquidity and pegging exactness.

[btswildpig]

Dilution would only come from forced settlements.

they will force settle for sure because they need to eat and pay rent .
They said it out right : They didn't sell BTS because of they think it would drop . They need to sell because they need to pay rent and eat .

So it doesn't matter if you give them BTS or BitUSD , they will need to sell it to FIAT and cause actual dilution every month .

It's still the same thing . And it will cause the false sense of "less dilution" and led to more dilution .

Strongly AGAINST this .

Unless there is a vest in period , dilution is still dilution no matter it's in BitUSD or BTS.


Besides , the whole peg scheme is regulated by one's own risk assessments about how BTS price will go in the future , but using "dilution" to generate BitUSD , you removed the "risk assessment" part from the equation , and you'll add extra unstable supply of BitUSD out of thin air and make the whole thing break apart .

 

[Stan]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD  or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

That's true, active markets for the bitAssets could make it work.

I think this is a great suggestion. 

Egad, Brain, Brilliant!

[mike623317]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD  or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

That's true, active markets for the bitAssets could make it work.

I think this is a great suggestion. 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

This is one among many other improvements that can be made to the worker proposal to get it working better.

[yvv]

Dilution would only come from forced settlements.

[dannotestein]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD  or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

That's true, active markets for the bitAssets could make it work.

[yvv]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

They could be paid in any bitAssets of their choice. When they want to cash out, they would convert their bitAssets to OPEN.USD  or OPEN.BTC, or do it whatever way they prefer. Even if they dump their bitAssets for BTS, it would not dilute BTS.

[dannotestein]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

This could be a great idea, but it probably requires a good gateway to fiat for the bit assets being paid out. So it would probably work now for workers willing to be paid in bitCNY, but not in bitUSD.

[yvv]

There is actually something bitshares could learn from steem. Steem doesn't give away STEEM tokens to content creators for posting their BS. Instead, they use STEEM as collateral to issue steem dollars, which they give away. This is actually smart approach, because such a giveaway does not cause a dilution. Bitshares could do the same, even better. Instead of paying workers BTS, committee could use the reserve as collateral to issue smart coins and pay a worker with smart coin of his/her choice. This would fill the market with different bitAssets. The only dilution would come from forced settlements. Right now the reserve is enough to issue over 2M bitUSD, and as the reserve gets filled with collected fees, more could be issued.

[ebit]

you could've learn that from any 90% premined coin

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I haven't followed Steem, but there valuation is up & buy support is up.

This is the opposite of what I thought would happen when hundreds of thousands of dollars were made available for redemption on Jul 4th. So well done.

If one of the key USP's as Erlich says above is that they are offering interest payments (on Steem USD?)

Then this is something I've been advocating for BitUSD for ages and think it will be self-funding during the SmartCoin growth stage.

I don't think it has anything to do with fundamentals yet.. its a shiney new toy still.. I don't think that many are trading on any fundamentals.. really it could just all be a bot loaded with 50 BTC. Bittrex added support for SBD shortly after July 4th.. that helped I suppose. It would be interesting to see if typical non-crypto trader/users get into it though.

I would love to see a sustainable model in bitshares where interest can be derived in a decentralized way.. that doesn't include pulling it from dilution... I have thought of some ways but they all involve some kind of hardfork feature change.. which I know will take a fair amount of time.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

Well stated. I don't think we are going to see real success from market manipulations. Utility and adoption are what have kept Bitcoin in the lead even with all its problems. Tipping point is coming. I honestly don't know if it will ever really make a difference in the way our market cap goes, but at the end of the day there is just one number that really matters... users.

Woah, now hold on there honcho.

I don't care how many users PeerPlays has or grows to.  The only number I care about is profits.

Show me a profitable coin that pays dividends, and then you will see why STEEM is rising (interest payments), and how to shift this Internet bubble into the next paradigm (one of profits).

Profits are just a derivative of users. Users = profits. With users, profits follow... depending on your model. In the STEEM model, I think it will be a bit different really. With users, profits will become more difficult. Now everyone is a big fish in a small pond.. once it grows to lots of fish in a big pond.. those payout rewards are going to get more difficult to garner. I am not sure when that will start to become apparent. The experiment calls for only the most exceptional content winning in the end... I think some will knock themselves out trying to crack that nut.

Peerplays on the other hand has a very understandable model, as does bitshares (if you really look).. more users = more profits.

[Empirical1.2]

I haven't followed Steem, but there valuation is up & buy support is up.

This is the opposite of what I thought would happen when hundreds of thousands of dollars were made available for redemption on Jul 4th. So well done.

If one of the key USP's as Erlich says above is that they are offering interest payments (on Steem USD?)

Then this is something I've been advocating for BitUSD for ages and think it will be self-funding during the SmartCoin growth stage.

[Erlich Bachman]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

Well stated. I don't think we are going to see real success from market manipulations. Utility and adoption are what have kept Bitcoin in the lead even with all its problems. Tipping point is coming. I honestly don't know if it will ever really make a difference in the way our market cap goes, but at the end of the day there is just one number that really matters... users.

Woah, now hold on there honcho.

I don't care how many users PeerPlays has or grows to.  The only number I care about is profits.

Show me a profitable coin that pays dividends, and then you will see why STEEM is rising (interest payments), and how to shift this Internet bubble into the next paradigm (one of profits).

[fuzzy]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

This is actually historically inaccurate.  Bitshares never made it past ripple because when we were approaching it, Ripple's leadership decided to release all the locked up Ripple held by the foundation to become part of ripples marketcap...manipulating coinmarketcap in such a way as to make them skyrocket in value...

From that day on bitshares never got close to #3 again.  If it had passed ripple, I suspect it would have garnered quite a bit of attention and likely would have had many more eyeballs on it as it was and still is in most ways superior to Ripple.

This is the reason why you will see the term "pulling a ripple" on these forums from time to time.

I say this because if circumstances were different and the ripple defensive maneuver hadn't occurred, we would be in a completely different ballpark most likely.  This is a pretty important circumstance to consider.  I only hope you guys all really consider joining and using steem...I don't want people left behind when they can earn (and maybe put earnings back into bitshares??).

[mike623317]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

Well stated. I don't think we are going to see real success from market manipulations. Utility and adoption are what have kept Bitcoin in the lead even with all its problems. Tipping point is coming. I honestly don't know if it will ever really make a difference in the way our market cap goes, but at the end of the day there is just one number that really matters... users.

THIS ^^^

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

Well stated. I don't think we are going to see real success from market manipulations. Utility and adoption are what have kept Bitcoin in the lead even with all its problems. Tipping point is coming. I honestly don't know if it will ever really make a difference in the way our market cap goes, but at the end of the day there is just one number that really matters... users.

[bitAndy]

Realistically how many crypto-currencies deserve the market cap they have based on utility? Bitcoin is the only one I think can possibly make that claim. I'm here for the long haul; I think the potential benefit bitshares can have on the world is worth the grind to the top. We just need to keep improving and maintain a positive community spirit.

[dannotestein]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

Increased utility and ease of use are the key. We have to be in this for the long haul, that's the most realistic way to achieve success.

[pc]

Thinking that artificially pumping  price of pre-mined token by locking it for two years makes you rich is a delusion.

[麥可貓]

Bitshares had its prime time too. As I can recall, it passed ripple and became the no.2 highest market cap. To take a long story short, what happened then caused bitshares fell to the market cap of today. I couldn't tell if the same thing will happen to steem, but I strongly feel that we should keep going on the current route, and make bitshares more appealing in more practical use cases, and never look back.

[lil_jay890]

When Steem was announced, Dan talked about how this was the plan.

Super big, yet artificial, price pump to get eyeballs.  I still don't think it is as high as he thought it should get.  It's still moving up and my guess are people are going to jump on the FOMO train.

You can see that it is still in a downtrend when priced in BTC.  It shows how market cap on CMC can be manipulated via inflation and illiquidity.

[yvv]

Thinking that artificially pumping  price of pre-mined token by locking it for two years makes you rich is a delusion.

[fav]

you could've learn that from any 90% premined coin

and two . lock in is not enough .

you have to make 90% of the coin owned by a few people in order to make this scheme work .

The BM i know two years ago would write an article on how sketchy STEEM really is .

Not now .

if you can't beat 'em join 'em. not even mad about his decision, tools throwing millions at dumb ICO's and whatnot - I'd take my sweet share as well

[btswildpig]

you could've learn that from any 90% premined coin

and two . lock in is not enough .

you have to make 90% of the coin owned by a few people in order to make this scheme work .

The BM i know two years ago would write an article on how sketchy STEEM really is .

Not now .

[Shentist]

As many people can see on coinmarketcap steem is valued 53 million dollar

this is amazing....

how do we get bitshares to this point, what should we learn??

keep as many shares from the exchanges, so that the demand always exceed the offers

- on bittrex https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-STEEM only 38.000 steem can be bought, so you need just 40 Bitcoin to double
steems value again. with this market structure steem will get to 1 billion in just a couple of weeks.

so we need to create something to lockup 95% of bitshares for 2 years and we will get all rich. Think about it. This is much easier as we might think
it will be.