A metacoin is the same as a user defined coin. There is no difference. You can bet with a user asset versus another user asset.
Anyone (IXC foundation included) can chose to distribute a new asset in any way it pleases. Via burning IXC, by paying a fee, etc.
No, it is not. How many times we need to go through this?
A metacoin is not issued by anyone, it is created within the implementation. Therefore it is not controlled by anyone, and it will exists as long as the protocol exists. Any user definied asset is issued by someone, and requires trust to the issuer (additionally with some legal implications). I could issue a coin mimicin my proposed metacoin 2b), but I can also cancel the coin at any time. I'm sure you can imagine reasons (mob/feds, my family) for doing that.
Ok, the meta coin is better from a legal and trustless point. Which is a big sales point.
But can others then still add on their versions like they would if we used user defined assets instead.
I like the metacoin idea better but creating a free market which can grow and invite others to add their versions of "assets" has some very appealing benefits.
I hope I'm expressing this clearly. I'd like to see anyone being able to add their own meta coins as well and let markets decide which is best. If that's possible.
I don't think you get it.
meta-coin is the same as user assets. NO DIFFERENCE
if you want to create your own TESLA asset/coin then you can do it. Heck, you can do it now with CounterParty.
I however need to make a point here. It is worthless if we don't make it easy for users to find and purchase these assets.
So if you can't find the assets, then it doesn't matter if you are selling them.
If you can't find what you can bet on, it doesn't matter if there is a betting system.
So in terms of whether it will improve IXC value, it all depends on making it accessible for the average user.