BitUSD needs liquidity for those that want to buy it.

[JonnyB]

Time to close this thread.
After too many posts it becomes hard to track what's been said and confusion ensues.

The conclusion I have reached from reading all these posts is that while most agree BitUSD needs liquidity, the method of creating BitUSD by committee for sell side liquidity is not supported by a large majority.

However. Another suggestion brought up by xeroc where worker proposals are paid in BitAssets instead of BTS got support from alot of people.

The details of how this might work need to discussed so I am going to start a new thread proposing this idea in more detail.
Thanks for all the feedback.

[tbone]

https://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

There you go. A detailed analysis on how dumb, 'smartcoins' are.

The facts in that article are just wrong .. they may have been right in BTS-X .. but they are no longer .. 2014 is so 1900

Sounds like a good opportunity to refute all of the points in that article and put it on steemit!

I would be very interested to read

That bitMormot thing still comes up often enough after I mention Bitshares to people and they go do some research ..

If you want to extol the virtues of Bitshares in general and BitAssets in particular, that's great.  But I don't think it will be helpful in any way, shape, or form to dignify that article by linking to it and/or quoting it.  Please just let it continue fading into the dustbin of history.

[karnal]

https://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

There you go. A detailed analysis on how dumb, 'smartcoins' are.

The facts in that article are just wrong .. they may have been right in BTS-X .. but they are no longer .. 2014 is so 1900

Sounds like a good opportunity to refute all of the points in that article and put it on steemit!

I would be very interested to read

That bitMormot thing still comes up often enough after I mention Bitshares to people and they go do some research ..

[xeroc]

https://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

There you go. A detailed analysis on how dumb, 'smartcoins' are.

The facts in that article are just wrong .. they may have been right in BTS-X .. but they are no longer .. 2014 is so 1900

[tarantulaz]

https://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

There you go. A detailed analysis on how dumb, 'smartcoins' are.

[Chris4210]

Why would someone buy BTS and convert them into BitUSD, when the only thing he does is to raise the value of BTS and then risk losing all his money in an extreme scenario where the price goes down?

I think we have to consider the different users of a BitUSD.

First, we have the traders, bankers, and industry experts. The concept of derivative contracts is 101 for every trader. How to read the market, how to short etc. They are the ones who will be in charge of buying BTS and shorting BitAssets. They can handle the risk and hedge themselves against losses.

Second, we have regular users of BitAssets who do not understand the technical details how they work. And quit honestly they don´t care. They want to keep the digital currency linked to Fiat for consumption and savings.

The most important goal to prevent a big devaluation of BTS is to give users a reason to use it. If we have thousands of users who just use BitUSD for payments, then it is very unlikely that BTS lose their value in a very short time.
A community has to give a coin value. It is the same with Bitcoin and fiat currencies like Euro and Dollar. We as a society commonly agree that I can buy product and services in the value of 1 Euro at any time. If this common trust in the currency is broken, we have to come up with a new trade good.

Another solution would fit nicely would be that all worker proposals are paid in BitUSD but this would require a hard fork.

That's not true. I proposed on several occasions to create a new multisig account (owned by the committee) that actually creates the workers for people looking to work for BitShares, gets the BTS and borrows bitUSD at ratio 3x or more) to pay them to the "employee" ...
All we need to do is to agree on this process since the shareholder needs to pay 3x - MORE for the worker in BTS terms to fund the collateral.

I'm glad you agree this would be a suitable alternative. We should look to develop this idea further.
When I said it would require a hard fork I meant for it to be done in a decentralised way. 
Yes the committee-account could pay BitUSD to workers that mirrors the pay that they receive for their own worker proposals. (but this isn't very elegant)
The ultimate solution would be if all workers were paid in Bitusd that was created autonomously using the funds in the reserve pool as backing. (this would need a hard fork)

I would like to pick up the discussion here. How would such a BitAsset worker look like? How long would it take to write the code and who can control the worker? Would the BitAsset worker be a new worker type?

It would be interesting if I could choose between a BTS or BitAsset worker. We should consider the option and give it a try. I am for a BitAsset worker!

[dxdxdx5889702]

1%compensation is not theft, it encourages the transaction bitusd-bts, do not encourage people to mortgage production bitusd damage.

[tonyk]

I have to point out that i used to be a big fan of BitAssets. I thought they were amazing and it took my a while to understand how they work, precisely because it didn't make any financial sense. I would also like to apologise to @tonyk who I personally attacked and thought he was an idiot.

But... but he is indeed an idiot!

I couldn't understand why was he spending his time trying to reason with people that didn't have a clue about the things they were talking about (myself included) and I finally understand why bitcoin maximalists call altcoins scams...

anyway this is  a child's play, in comparison
...wait until the steaming pile of steem_ed BS  inevitably implodes... then you will see what a srypto scheme colapse does to the unsuspected masses...

It will an epic fun...unfortunately ONLY for the 2 of us not evolved - me and E1.08

[tarantulaz]

You are mixing completely different concepts together. Bitshares is not a bank. Neither of crypto is. All investments are risky. Some of them are more risky and some are less risky. Collateral in bitshares is adjustable, it is the community who chose it to be as high as it is. You don't like BTS collateral? Then go ahead  and create assets which are fully backed by physical gold and silver. Good luck with that.

It isn't a different concept and I don't understand why do you get so confused. You take an extremely risky asset and you try to make it stable, which is abnormal. Never heard of : With Bitcoin you are your own bank? With BitShares it has gone as far as : You are your own bank and you can issue your own USD. You are the FED. Is it so bloody hard to understand that if we start printing our own USD, we are essentially like the FED? The fact that it is done in a decentralized fashion, by non-professionals, doesn't mean that it is going to be good. Somehow with crypto everyone things that he is a professional and he knows how do shit.

Chill out dude. You are not FED. Nobody here is. Never heard of secured loans? They are known to humankind for ages. BitAsset is nothing more than secured loan. Anything of value can be used as collateral, including crypto tokens. What problem do you have with this?

Why did you bring gold and silver up? I am talking about FIAT.

Make an account at openledger.info, search for bitGold and bitSilver. Guess what? They work exactly the same way as fiat pegged assets without the need to store tons of physical metals.

This thing is not going to be successful, no matter how hard you try. It either won't take off or it will die miserably.

I know. And we all gonna die.

First of all I was talking about the idea of having the blockchain create its own BitUSD. That was the main thing I was opposing, even if I am opposing BitUSD too.

BitUSD are secured by something extremely insecure and speculative. Only 25% of the chain is voting and nobody has cared to attack so far, but that doesn't mean that someone won't attack when he will have a lot to gain by attacking.

Imagine if we had a massive speculative bubble in BTS and lots of BitUSD were created while we were going up and then 80% crash occured. We've seen big drops in BTS and people should be used to this kind of moves? That means that there is no reason for that person to buy BitUSD again in order to unlock its collateral and then his collateral would be taken by the blockchain. Smartcoin are amazing at stealing value and putting it in the blockchain in this way.

Who would want to lock his money in something like this and what would he gain? The fact that they are working now, doesn't mean that they will keep working indefinitely. I still don't understand what is so hard for you to understand. Many ponzi schemes, bankrupt banks/states and failed projects like NuBits where fine for most of the time. Nobody realises until the crash. I have no more time to spend trying to prevent people from losing money. You either take my advice or leave it and pray that nothing bad is going to happen.

I have to point out that i used to be a big fan of BitAssets. I thought they were amazing and it took my a while to understand how they work, precisely because it didn't make any financial sense. I would also like to apologise to @tonyk who I personally attacked and thought he was an idiot. I couldn't understand why was he spending his time trying to reason with people that didn't have a clue about the things they were talking about (myself included) and I finally understand why bitcoin maximalists call altcoins scams... Yeah let's give liquidity rewards, let's pay interest, let's do everything bytemaster says in order to scam others, while he is scamming everyone.

[dxdxdx5889702]

I mean, bitcrab's proposal is good for the system to be used and to increase the customer.

[dxdxdx5889702]

You think the perfect solution, means that can not be promoted. I don't believe that windows is weaker than mac.

Please pay attention to what the negative rate of steem brings. Bitshares reduce the transfer fee with what.

[yvv]

You are mixing completely different concepts together. Bitshares is not a bank. Neither of crypto is. All investments are risky. Some of them are more risky and some are less risky. Collateral in bitshares is adjustable, it is the community who chose it to be as high as it is. You don't like BTS collateral? Then go ahead  and create assets which are fully backed by physical gold and silver. Good luck with that.

It isn't a different concept and I don't understand why do you get so confused. You take an extremely risky asset and you try to make it stable, which is abnormal. Never heard of : With Bitcoin you are your own bank? With BitShares it has gone as far as : You are your own bank and you can issue your own USD. You are the FED. Is it so bloody hard to understand that if we start printing our own USD, we are essentially like the FED? The fact that it is done in a decentralized fashion, by non-professionals, doesn't mean that it is going to be good. Somehow with crypto everyone things that he is a professional and he knows how do shit.

Chill out dude. You are not FED. Nobody here is. Never heard of secured loans? They are known to humankind for ages. BitAsset is nothing more than secured loan. Anything of value can be used as collateral, including crypto tokens. What problem do you have with this?

Why did you bring gold and silver up? I am talking about FIAT.

Make an account at openledger.info, search for bitGold and bitSilver. Guess what? They work exactly the same way as fiat pegged assets without the need to store tons of physical metals.

This thing is not going to be successful, no matter how hard you try. It either won't take off or it will die miserably.

I know. And we all gonna die.

[tarantulaz]

You are mixing completely different concepts together. Bitshares is not a bank. Neither of crypto is. All investments are risky. Some of them are more risky and some are less risky. Collateral in bitshares is adjustable, it is the community who chose it to be as high as it is. You don't like BTS collateral? Then go ahead  and create assets which are fully backed by physical gold and silver. Good luck with that.

It isn't a different concept and I don't understand why do you get so confused. You take an extremely risky asset and you try to make it stable, which is abnormal. Never heard of : With Bitcoin you are your own bank? With BitShares it has gone as far as : You are your own bank and you can issue your own USD. You are the FED. Is it so bloody hard to understand that if we start printing our own USD, we are essentially like the FED? The fact that it is done in a decentralized fashion, by non-professionals, doesn't mean that it is going to be good. Somehow with crypto everyone things that he is a professional and he knows how do shit.

Why did you bring gold and silver up? I am talking about FIAT. Normal easy  stuff, using secured customer deposits, that 100% risk free. I never said that I want to create token anyways. It is very early to introduce such a thing in any crypto, except if you have direct fiat gateways, that are fully insured.

This thing is not going to be successful, no matter how hard you try. It either won't take off or it will die miserably.

[yvv]

BitAssets will not need to rely on price feed from poloniex when UIAs which are pegged 1:1 to the underlying assets get more liquidity. Then you get the feed price for bitAssets from DEX order book.

This can lead to a massive failure. This is exactly what Nubits did. They relied on liquidity providers, rather than their reserves. Obviously BitShares use collateral which is much better than what they did, but nevertheless, really flawed. What happens if the liquidity goes away? Who guarantees constant liquidity? Who will want those BitUSD if BitShares goes to 0?

You are talking about things which are common to any financial asset out there as if it is a tragedy. What if SPD500 ETF goes to 0? Should we all die?

That doesn't make any sense. It is totally unrelated. The problem is that if traders want to trade BitUSD they need insurance that no matter what happens to BitShares that they will get their money. We are talking about a product of the company, which if it collapses its customers will lose their money. FXCM offers protection to all deposit. Does BitShares do that? No!

Would it make sense, if a solvent bank used its customers' deposits buyback their shares, just because its share price dropped? Bail-ins happen when someone is insolvent, not when his share price go down. 200% collateral or above is extremely inefficient too. If I had 200$, I would want to use all of them, not half. Again, I am talking about a scam invented by Bytemaster and that has too many risks. The last thing I want is BitShares to become NuShares 2.0... Ask @Chronos who lost a lot of money in his beloved NuBits scam...

You are mixing completely different concepts together. Bitshares is not a bank. Neither of crypto is. All investments are risky. Some of them are more risky and some are less risky. Collateral in bitshares is adjustable, it is the community who chose it to be as high as it is. You don't like BTS collateral? Then go ahead  and create assets which are fully backed by physical gold and silver. Good luck with that.

[tarantulaz]

BitAssets will not need to rely on price feed from poloniex when UIAs which are pegged 1:1 to the underlying assets get more liquidity. Then you get the feed price for bitAssets from DEX order book.

This can lead to a massive failure. This is exactly what Nubits did. They relied on liquidity providers, rather than their reserves. Obviously BitShares use collateral which is much better than what they did, but nevertheless, really flawed. What happens if the liquidity goes away? Who guarantees constant liquidity? Who will want those BitUSD if BitShares goes to 0?

You are talking about things which are common to any financial asset out there as if it is a tragedy. What if SPD500 ETF goes to 0? Should we all die?

That doesn't make any sense. It is totally unrelated. The problem is that if traders want to trade BitUSD they need insurance that no matter what happens to BitShares that they will get their money. We are talking about a product of the company, which if it collapses its customers will lose their money. FXCM offers protection to all deposit. Does BitShares do that? No!

Would it make sense, if a solvent bank used its customers' deposits buyback their shares, just because its share price dropped? Bail-ins happen when someone is insolvent, not when his share price go down. 200% collateral or above is extremely inefficient too. If I had 200$, I would want to use all of them, not half. Again, I am talking about a scam invented by Bytemaster and that has too many risks. The last thing I want is BitShares to become NuShares 2.0... Ask @Chronos who lost a lot of money in his beloved NuBits scam...