Quote from: kraizi on June 04, 2014, 04:00:46 AM

Quote from: jamaer on June 03, 2014, 09:40:41 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on June 03, 2014, 09:00:33 PM

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.

Yes, exactly. And now think about average-Joe who wants to make some bets. First he buys IXC. So far so good. Then he starts looking betting markets. He finds three games with nice odds. Game A is definied in terms of user-definied-currency-A (UDCA). So he tries to buy UDCA with decent price. Game B is definied in UDCB, So he buys some UDCB. Game C is definied in UDCC, ... you get the picture. So maybe it might be better just to have metacoin he could buy with IXC and make his bets in all games?

jamaer has a point. Why have many disjointed assets doing the job of the original metacoin? We would be forcing the user community to recreate functions already available in the stock CP. Why disable betting using the original metacoin, then expect or hope someone will add an asset to fill the void.

I do like ALSO allowing user defined assets/currencies for betting. Is this not allowed in the original CP?

It's inevitable that new assets will crop up to duplicate the functionality of the metacoin, but it may be best to leave the metacoin in to get users off to a quick start.

My original concern about the metacoin devaluing IXC is lessening. CP doesn't work without assets, which can act just like the metacoin. So why not just leave the metacoin in place to provide full functionality of CP? Aren't we just delaying the inevitable?

Friction, any comment on this? I'm leaning toward using the metacoin to ensure liquidity.