Quote from: canuck on May 29, 2017, 02:23:06 PM

Quote from: schnidl on May 29, 2017, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Mallyx on May 29, 2017, 12:53:27 PM

Quote from: 22naru on May 29, 2017, 12:43:28 PM

Quote from: schnidl on May 29, 2017, 12:34:57 PM

Hi guys!

I send BTC, EUR, USD, ... to a gateway and get tokens wEUR, wUSD, wBTC ...
I have full controll of the tokens in a decentralised network, so everything is safe (the only weak point is myself --> password, trojans, virus, ...)
Sounds good so far.

But what if the original EUR, USD, BTC get stolen? What if the gateway gets hacked, or goes broke? My tokens are still here, wonderfull. But they aren't backed 1:1 anymore, they are worthless. I can't change my wBTC to BTC anymore.

So whats the advantage over a normal exchange like poloniex??? I don't get it, where is my mistake?

i wait for a good A. aswell.

It require a third party to convert fiat/BTC to Waves tokens. The guarantee depend of the gateway, as the safety of your coins on Polo depend of the service itself.

The advantage is that more gateway should join on the long term (nothing prevent you to create your own gateway service). So if one is compromised, you have all the others.
The eco-system is still building up.

I see no difference between a gateway and a normal exchange.
Only difference i can see is, that for example 2 EUR gateways will be live in short time. If both are used nearly the same and one gets hacked or runs away with our funds, the tokens aren't backed 1:1 anymore but 2:1. So if more than 50% of users wanna change tokens to cash, there'll be a problem. The more gateways the better, but in the long run 1:1 backing won't work.

Basically what you're pointing out is that gateways are exposed to a risk of fraud or theft. It's a good observation and as in any market where credit is being extended, or where purchasing power is being converted, gateways will have to charge a premium for their services that cover costs of service provision, and mitigate some risk of fraud. The 1:1 backing will still exist, but a gateway may lose funds in the case of fraud.

Similarly, if you convert fake dollar bills into real euros at a currency exchange business, the currency exchange business takes the hit and has to draw from their profits to cover the loss. This is possible in part because fiat monies aren't stablecoins. While the financial ecosystem is harmed, it remains functional, and nominal accounting remains integral in the broader economy.

What you're identifying is a risk to gateways, not a risk to the broader WAVES exchange economy. You're right to identify it, but it doesn't threaten 1:1 backing. If that threatened 1:1 backing, then so too would the taking of any profits by gateways.

Now everything makes sense to me. The comparison with usd bills is nice. And that the gateways earn fees is also a good point, so there will always be someone who'll run a gateway. You opened my mind, thanks!