从比原链销毁方案中可以感觉出：比特股急需P2P借贷增加收入

[kenCode]

Thanks for your idea @kenCode.

 

[bitcrab]

Thanks for your idea @kenCode.

in my view it still make sense to make a gateway independent on one single entity, automatic and secure enough.

maybe IBC is the final cross-chain solution, the bytom OFMF is just some basic version "automatic multisig gateway", however it already make big sense, it had enabled many big wallets(include imToken, Cobo, etc.) to connect with Bytom, the network effect is great.

[kenCode]

possible to build decentralized gateway in BTS like in BYTOM MOV?
more detail can be found in https://cdn.bytom.io/res/MOV_WhitePaper_En.pdf

The grammar in the whitepaper is horrible, which might open some legal issues, and misconceptions imo.
However, the bad grammar aside, it does state:
 
"..at present, decentralized transactions also have low efficiency in onchain transactions, onchain settlement, offchain matching and centralized thirdparty etc."
 
On the Bitshares blockchain, I disagree with all 4 of those points.
1. Bitshares is incredibly efficient already, ON-chain.
2. Settlements fully confirm in a minute (with 3 second blocks too!), ON-chain.
3. OFF-chain matching can be done with any block explorer, as well as use of an Elastic Search (ES) node proving us with all the data we could ever need from any Op on the chain. Named accounts makes that even easier.
4. Centralized third-parties are not NEEDED imo, but they did help get Bitshares off the ground with some exposure and liquidity. There are ways around their use though, such as use of KYC-free bridges like godex.io and stealthex.io. Atomic Swaps are also going to play a huge part of the elimination of 3rd parties (HTLC, ILP, IBC, etc). IPFS, ActivityPub, I2P and other protocols will help eliminate our HTTP, DNS and other attack vectors too.
 
Now, here was the real kicker for me, which really sounds like Centralisation, NOT DE-centralisation:
 
"Bytom team release the next-generation decentralized cross-chain Layer 2 value exchange protocol"
 
That statement sounds like it was written by a CEO or Marketing guy. If they knew what SegWit was (and why, for example, Roger Ver removed SegWit from BCH), they would see that statement as centralisation. Someone is taking your funds OFF-chain. Or, "Layer 2" as they call it. Lightning Network imo is similar. Once funds leave the main chain, it can be manipulated in any number of ways, and worse yet, this is where KYC will eventually be enforced.
 
There are other ways to make a DE-centralised gateway, ON-chain, and I do not think the Bytom guys (whomever they are) are on the right track.

[bitcrab]

possible to build decentralized gateway in BTS like in BYTOM MOV?



more detail can be found in https://cdn.bytom.io/res/MOV_WhitePaper_En.pdf

[Thul3]

Agree

https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-10-bsip70


Instead of focusing on important features our core works on irrelevant BSIP's

[ebit]

https://www.chainnode.com/post/425172


我们抵押BTS生产智能币稳定币，系统不收利息；持有稳定币也没利息收入。这是一个共同贫穷的局面。

 如何增收呢？ P2P借贷不仅能解决双方增收问题，还能解决抵押品单一问题。 想抵押GDEX.BTC的人，可以通过P2P借贷系统，获得持有稳定币的人的借贷资金。当然，抵押GDEX.BTC的人需要支付贷款利息；比特股系统要向放贷者抽佣。

这就实现了共同富裕。

比原链的销毁方案非常巧妙：双层销毁，起到了施压激励管理层的效果。

如果MOV的发展达不到预期，比原链基金会将于2021年4月底，根据链上公开数据，将自持BTM用于销毁以填补全年差额，确保达到既定销毁目标数量。如果MOV发展超过预期，BTM销毁不设上限，按约定比例进行销毁。