- What makes B&C better than OpenLedger?
I don't know whether it's better. It's just different, e.g. in the way it offers trading pairs. B&C will offer trading of native assets instead of using proxy assets. This can remove friction.
And you can bet that B&C will have sufficient (US-)NBT liquidity. So you can effectively trade assets at pairs with "USD rates".
Does Openledger have pairs with synthetic fiat at a tight peg and decent volume?
Does Openledger have a client with that you can do your trades or are you limited to a website for your trading?
While it's expected to find websites that allow convenient access to the "B&C user accounts", the user account is on the B&C blockchain and the user can't be locked out. What happens to user funds on exchange, if
https://bitshares.openledger.info is down due to technical or legal issues, DDoS'ed or unusable in any other way?
You might be able to DDoS B&C as well, but that will make BKS holders awfully rich and can't be sustained forever.
Users can't be locked out from their funds easily. They are handled by multisg through the signers.
- What are the differences between BKS shareholders and signers in terms of voting power?
None, that I'm aware of. Being signer doesn't create voting power. It's signing the tx, that are required for trading, what the signers are for. Voting is done by the BKS holders.
- How are you planning to take into consideration and defend the B&C user interests Vs BKS shareholders & signers?
B&C user interests are of paramount interest for BKS holders. It's the users that consume BKC, which are required to pay fees and get destroyed by that. Destroying BKC means new BKC can get sold. That generates revenue (BTC), which BKS holders want to achieve (BTC will be distributed as dividends to BKS holders).
Signers are a kind of contract workers, hired by BKS holders.
If they don't behave, they'll get removed and replaced.
I see your voting system a bit too static and away from what decentralization means...
You seem to confuse decentralization with communism. Ownership of B&C and the signers are decentralized and distributed.
You are giving zero power to your users which are the most important part of your project.
Users have all the power they need to have. They vote with their purses
You might have achieved a decentralized platform but its governance model defeats the whole idea that your are trying to sell. Why don't you make it a decentralized autonomous exchange (DAE) far from human conflict of interest. The running costs including developers would come out of the fees and donations and if there was a surplus the whole community could vote what to do with it via a smart voting system that takes into account the users voice, the developers voice and the infrastructure people voice.
This governance model (shareholders deciding by direct voting which way to go) proved to be very successful during all the development decisions and business process decisions Nu had to make since its beginning.
It's way more advances than what's used in traditional stock corporations. You don't need middlemen here!
As I said before, users already have a vote. They vote with they behaviour. If they don't come or leave the exchange, the BKS holders will hear that!
Users have an interest in using a convenient and cheap exchange.
BKS holders want to offer that, but still make money from it.
As the BKS holders funded this whole exchange, I think it's ok, if they have a say.
If users want to influence something at B&C directly, they might want to buy BKS?
And BKS holders will listen to the users who may ask for services on forum, of course, shareholders are not deaf.
They will listen the same way corporations listen to their users but hey! it's okay, making profit out of them it's all that matters.
I'm still waiting for the answers of my questions
Corporations who listen to their users are more successful than others - at least if there are alternatives; a monopoly is different.
B&C is not the only decentralized exchange approach.
B&C will need to listen to its users.
