Quote from: toknormal on February 06, 2016, 11:12:12 PM

Quote from: Minotaur26 on February 06, 2016, 10:19:49 PM

See the thing is that without the volatility it would be way harder to get more adoption and new partners. Established crypto businesses know they bring value into the relationship at this point and they hope that as a new partnership is announced the value of the network and the price would go up. They care a lot more about the potential upside than about the potential loss.

Take away that volatility and there is a lot less interest. It is one of those things that if you "fix it" it has unintended consequences.

This will not be the case later on, as Dash is bigger and more established we will have a lot more leverage in the negotiation and will be able to dictate the terms we want. For the time being we need to be more flexible.

Thats a good point Minotaur, but I'm trying to make the case for a more generalised financial model for Dash. What you've identified in your post is a market for risk assets, thats all. But there are loads of markets for risk assets, not all of them crypto currencies. Dash is not unique in supplying volatility to a financial trading market.

Here's the thing: Bitcoin has plenty of backing now, but it has kind of lost the plot as a monetary unit. Satoshi created a very well defined monetary unit of exchange. Then he disappeared and left Gavin to manage the code. Then Gavin gave GitHub access to a bunch of guys that he thought were clever programmers. Then they got bought up by some venture capitalists.

Now bitcoin is a rudderless ship because it's being directed by people who cannot escape from their "fiat" way of seeing things. In particular, Greg Maxwell who is at once a very clever programmer and at the same time absolutely void of imagination as to how a new monetary system could work. (IMO that's because he doesn't fully understand how the old one worked). The reason I name him in particular is because he's symbolic of the legacy model to the point that he's obsessed with coding it into re-incarnation in the crypto currency domain with its multiple, corporately managed girdles.

Expecting someone like Greg Maxwell to adequately implement digitally money is kind of like asking Mozart to write Jumping Jack Flash and for it to sound good.
Ain't gonna happen.

Witness sidechains - a monetary clown to bitcoins lion.

Returning to my previous post and to your reply, I think that Dash needs to start thinking about supporting the two distinct demands for monetary media:

[1] - risk assets
[2] - stable currencies

The history of money is characterised by these two demands playing off against each other because there is always a balance of demand for both. Risk assets are demanded by the type of market you highlighted in your post.

But there is a huge market who do not make their money from investing in currency. They make it from manufacturing products (even some now emerging as applicants for Dash blockchain funding). Those users of currency require the exact opposite from risk asset investors - they need their manufacturing estimates come in on budget months or years from when the planning was done. You can't do that with a risk asset, you need a derivative.

Those markets are huge. Potentially far bigger that simple forex investment because most people who use money are using it to build something, not to hold and hope that it accrues in value. Therefore, Dash needs to work for them as well and start thinking about a derivative product which will do the exact opposite of what Dash does on the exchanges. i.e, when Dash tanks the derivative accrues value. When Dash surges the derivative declines.

At the very least I think we need to develop a consciousness around the distinction between risk assets and currency (or money and currency as Mike Maloney calls it). Doing that will keep Dash at the bleeding edge, not just in technological terms but in monetary terms as well.

So, are you saying we should do something like nubits does?