Author Topic: Lets bring " earn x% interest on 'anything' " back to Bitshares!  (Read 58822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline paliboy


50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend


I would support something like this.

It might be easier to get consensus in smaller steps. Maybe just get consensus on 50% for network and 50% referrals first.

 +5%

This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.

I agree that this is one option. What do you mean by "stop selling"? Remove it completely? At the beginning we could make it absurdly expensive.

Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation.  Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation.  Is this just a coincidence?

According to http://cryptofresh.com/a/USD, the current supply is 550,155 USD. Is this number wrong?

Offline Geneko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.

But Bitshares is a business. It creates value for its clients by providing:

-decentralized market place
-mechanism to create and maintain collateralized crypto fiat and crypto precious metal asset
-mechanism to create and maintain user issued asset - business or scam collateralized asset   
-it provides various tools for a business to leverage blockchain technology
-etc...
-etc...
-hopefully - provides dividend for their share holders

Lets take just one of these, decentralized market place. What is the value of Poloniex? Does it provide value?
If not, why people go there anyway and pay for their services. If does, how about additional value in organizing decentralized market place?
Should I elaborate on value of decentralized market place on top of blockchain?

What is the value of Coca Cola? Its a brown, carbonated, oversugary drink with serious health implications. It is more of a scam then many things in crypro. Just to remind you, at the moment of its introduction, it was snake oil type of a product, promising various health benefits.

Now back to Bitshares. Take all above value quote , put it on speed bullet platform and put negligibly small price tag on it (which it did in form of transaction fee). Now this is a VALUE. Who else has did it? This is "Coca Cola moment" we all hope for.

Bitshares is a DAC or DAO with huge value unlike the others that use that acronym. I would also call it decentralized autonomous business DAB with healthy revenue stream in form of transaction fees.

Offline svk

I tend to agree with alt on this. I would much rather have us start actually burning the fees instead of recycling them into the reserve pool so that bitshares would eventually go deflationary.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.

In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.

@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders?  Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts.  And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings.  There's nothing scammy about it!

Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation.  Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation.  Is this just a coincidence?

Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees.  This proposal wants to raise that to 50%.  Don't you love that?  You should.  You should love this whole proposal.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
you want to attract people with money
but where is the money from?  the point is who need to pay for these money, and can they profit with pay these money to exchange something?
cocacola pay divident  because they have custom, they create value, the divident come from customers.

ponze also pay divident, but they don't create value, they have to end in a scam.

so the point is not how much you can pay, is what's the value you have create.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.

@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders?  Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts.  And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings.  There's nothing scammy about it!

Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation.  Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation.  Is this just a coincidence?

Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees.  This proposal wants to raise that to 50%.  Don't you love that?  You should.  You should love this whole proposal.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.

saying this is scam is like saying coca cola is scam for paying out dividends. really?

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Quote
And I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt).  The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.

The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.

Can you explain this?  It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose.  How could someone short to themselves?


Someone can borrow bitUSD and send it to his other account. He is not in debt in this case and he shorts nothing on the market, but he is eligible for receiving yield. And you can't tell if someone is a legit shorter or a yield harvester just by looking at account debt, because you don't know who owns which account.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 03:13:19 am by yvv »

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.

Offline kani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Quote
And I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt).  The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.

The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.

Can you explain this?  It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose.  How could someone short to themselves?

Quote
And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'.  Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market.  Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different.  Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts.  They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages.  I think it's a bad idea to change this now.

This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.

This does not change the increased-fee effect on self-registered sub-accounts.  If the changes could be applied to new users only (at a future date... once implemented), then I'm probably okay with it...
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 01:56:58 am by kani »
My opinions are my own

Turn up the H.E.A.T.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Quote
And I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt).  The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.

The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.

Quote
And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'.  Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market.  Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different.  Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts.  They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages.  I think it's a bad idea to change this now.

This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.


Offline kani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
This is all dandy, but misleading.  The claim that this proposal does not raise user fees is absolutely FALSE!

A LTM account pays 20% to network, and gets 80% back in vesting.  And anyone who has self-registered sub-accounts, is the same -- 20% to network and 80% back to the registering account.  Don't mess with this -- any changes represent a major breach of trust to anybody who paid the $80-$150 to become a Life Time Member.

Do it with market fees.  Then there is no worry about how to convert to a chosen bitAsset, and is market driven -- more volume creates more revenue.

And I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt).  The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.  (And consider the VERY POSITIVE price effect this would have on BTS.  Many more will short bitAssets to chase the dividend payment and locking up that BTS for bitAsset of choice.  More BTS locked up means upward pressure on BTS price)

EDIT: And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'.  Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market.  Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different.  Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts.  They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages.  I think it's a bad idea to change this now.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 01:42:04 am by kani »
My opinions are my own

Turn up the H.E.A.T.

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin

50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend


I would support something like this.

It might be easier to get consensus in smaller steps. Maybe just get consensus on 50% for network and 50% referrals first.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Thanks to those who commented on what I wrote.  I have little time for detailed response but it's clear there is a wider perspective here which I did not consider.

But I will reinforce one idea in-particular: Substantial revenue for paying BTS and bitAsset interest can be made via "Market Fees".  This alleviates the risk of reserve pool managing short positions (or even touching the reserve pool at all).  One advantage is that "Market Fees" are produced in *that* asset (ie: bitUSD market fees come out in bitUSD, and etc).  The transaction fee schedule then remains, in effect, an anti-spam measure and does not take away from the existing referral system.  Plus there is no in-between step of converting BTS from transaction fees into the currency of choice.

Now, I do believe the market fees must be kept small to keep Bitshares a competitive trading platform.  Something like 0.05 to 0.1% is probably okay???  Would need broader community feedback and analysis.


EDIT: I really do think revenue sharing from exchange activity is important...  Does this phrase ring a bell?:
  • "BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
Let's make that statement a reality.

To alleviate your concerns, keep in mind that this thread is NOT proposing to have the reserve pool manage any short positions.  You must be thinking of the other thread where it was proposed to pay witnesses/workers in bitUSD by automatically converting BTS into bitUSD by shorting with a pre-determined collateral level, etc.  That was a good idea, but the proposal in this thread makes it largely unnecessary.

Also, keep in mind that this proposal does NOT aim to change the fees paid by users.  It only aims to realign the allocation of collected fees between the network and the referral program.  The purpose is to a) pay an interest rate of return on bitAssets in order to drive demand for bitAssets to levels not seen since we had interest payments in Bitshares 1.0  and b) pay a dividend on BTS held in LTM accounts in order to drive further demand for BTS and to incentivize more LTMs.  Amazingly this is all done without adding any dilution.  In fact, it will make bitshares substantially more deflationary than before.

This is by far the most bullish development for bitshares in my 2 years of following the project.  And I think now for the first time, the referral program will be very effective.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 11:06:11 pm by tbone »