Well the 'Leverage' is actually against you.
My other method of locking the BTC into an address and a penalty to be paid if moved, is like a CD except I could only use the CD value to leverage and not spend (however in that case, I would pay the 10 btc at the end, not up front).
In either case, I need to have some value to the 100 BTC.
I have doubts you will achieve this...
For example, Gavin accepts to be escrow... I transfer him money and this money he must return one year from now...
I don't know what "leverage" is for you but I doubt it can be applied if he will have the slightest doubt about this money not being returned.
Under the terms, of a locked in 100 BTC to an address that doesn't move and to an 'accepted
' escrow, lets look at the last few days. BTC went up 10%, since I won't pay the 10 in this scenario until the end of contract. It would be wise for you to come to an agreement to take back the 100 BTC to take the 10% profit, pay me the 2 BTC penalty, and still profit 8%.
Another method of using the 'CD' is I have a savings put a side in cold storage. I could keep that at the same level, take out 100 BTC, invest 100 BTC, etc... BUT the key to this method is that the BTC stays in an address in the blockchain and doesn't move so it can be referenced. If it moves, you pay a penalty (2 BTC) for early withdrawal. And I pay the 10 BTC at the end not up front.
Rather than make this foolish gamble.
The escrow really has the power here. Without assurances, he would just deposit with another and collect interest. Bredio is himself a lender, he would make interest. If he agrees that the interest he earns from 'holding' the BTC will go to me, then I will do the same as with Hash King.
Or you could just trust me, give me 90 BTC, and I'll pay you back 110 BTC in a year minus any negative difference.
But what I really want to show for anyone that takes you up on this, it that the money being held in escrow 'for a year' will probably be used to make money by whomever holds it and that needs to be added into your calculations.
Not to mention, Escrows usually deal in fairly short term deals, having them pay attention for a year is asking a little from them. They should charge a fee.
Multi-sigs have not been fully worked out and into the 'official' client, there would be a risk, possibly more to the escrow.
Or another way of stating your proposal: Just give me 90 BTC ( take the 10 BTC upfront ) and at the end of a 'YEAR', I'll give you 110 BTC minus any negative difference. I'll make any interest off of the amount, plus if at the end I'll get any negative difference to boost my interest earnings to date.
You seem to be trying to trick(maybe not intentionally) people with a Contract for Difference. There is nothing wrong with a Contract for Difference and you trying to use one, just let everybody know 'all' that will probably be done with the BTC.
May I suggest you just skip the 100 BTC escrow and just ask for an agreement and collect the 10 BTC upfront. Why make a CFD harder than it needs to be. The key would be to build up enough trust and reputation so that people will believe you will follow through on a contract and if you don't you have something to loose (i.e. Trust and Reputation )
Oh, because the idea here is to collect the difference in the value of BTC under a CFD, you could just deal in the traditional fiat and avoid the intermediary security. It would save some effort and expense. e.g. ( $50 upfront, $500 to pay the negative difference at the end of a year )
This method has merit to avoid any mention of BTC in transfers and their underlying reasons for the transfer. i.e. No need to mention Bitcoin in PP transfers, dwolla, etc....
BTW: Why not ask for 2000 Escrowed for the year? That way the Escrow can open a Pirate account and get 7%/week. After he gets his initial payment to you plus a little extra he can re-secure the funds and smile for the 'YEAR'.
Something tells me you know this already though.
FRB is alive an well in Bitcoins although this time it is unregulated and free market driven.