It's not a question of IF something will work (something broken is a problem, though).
It's a question of IF something brings utility to the mass market and if the mass market is utilizing this service. The NXT asset exchange as far as I can tell works extremely well. Much like BitSharesX's bitassets may work. The reality is asset trading just doesn't appeal to the plurality. It's also reinventing the wheel as if I really wanted to trade $USD then I would use real exchanges and not a crypto.
Main reason people went into cryptos was to escape the inflation of the $Fiat. Why do I need to deal with assets and other gimmicks when they already work pretty well themselves in the real world?
It's also a question of IF something is proprietary. The first mover advantage is great but what stops NXT from doing their own collateral or pegging system or a near-equivalent thereof?
I'm not sure how many times people have to tell you this, but the Nxt asset exchange is not the same thing as Bitshare's bitassets....... they are two completely different concepts. It seems like you still don't understand what bitassets are.
Still going on with that rhetorical dribble, huh?
How about instead of you pushing the burden on proof on me, due to
bitassets which isn't released until monday, how about you present the evidence that it's "completely different concepts" without posting a link full of rhetorical bullchit? We'll know on monday when your 'evidence' doesn't consist of rhetoric and rainbows.
bitassets are assets, end of story. If your only difference is a collateral and pegging system then that can patched into any asset system. Sure it may not be the exact 100% same as
bitassets but the regular user wouldn't know and if they did wouldn't care. Not everyone wants a centralized bank like BitShares.