◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[thelonecrouton]

This sits beautifully with the concept of unlimited money supply, new money is introduced at a calculated steady rate, while a lot is converted from coin to infrastructure, creating the possibility of a true economy

How is infinite supply better than finite supply that's (for all practical purposes for the forseeable future - and we can add more zeroes as needed) infinitely divisible?

I'm not overly concerned with the current market price of BCR, but reducing the total issuance to 70 million from 220 million would have a more positive impact I think than going from 220 million to infinity.

Burning BN collateral would have a further deflationary effect, but would reduce BN numbers greatly perhaps. If BNs are to be proactive businesses rather than network-crucial infrastructure collecting passive block reward then why not? At that point, do we need a masternode-type overlay network at all? Concentrate on making asset creation and management as simple as possible and give asseteers and their customers the tools in-wallet to communicate, contract and transact painlessly.

edit: If all wallet users with a balance > 0 were nominal proportional shareholders that got a quarterly dividend in whatever the currency the parent company used natively (fiat, crypto, cans of beans) then at some point the BCR token itself becomes almost irrelevant... well except as being one's def-facto share ownership of BCR Pan Galactic Inc.

[coins101]

This sits beautifully with the concept of unlimited money supply, new money is introduced at a calculated steady rate, while a lot is converted from coin to infrastructure, creating the possibility of a true economy

How is infinite supply better than finite supply that's (for all practical purposes for the forseeable future - and we can add more zeroes as needed) infinitely divisible?

I'm not overly concerned with the current market price of BCR, but reducing the total issuance to 70 million from 220 million would have a more positive impact I think than going from 220 million to infinity.

Burning BN collateral would have a further deflationary effect, but would reduce BN numbers greatly perhaps. If BNs are to be proactive businesses rather than network-crucial infrastructure collecting passive block reward then why not? At that point, do we need a masternode-type overlay network at all? Concentrate on making asset creation and management as simple as possible and give asseteers and their customers the tools in-wallet to communicate, contract and transact painlessly.

edit: If all wallet users with a balance > 0 were nominal proportional shareholders that got a quarterly dividend in whatever the currency the parent company used natively (fiat, crypto, cans of beans) then at some point the BCR token itself becomes almost irrelevant... well except as being one's def-facto share ownership of BCR Pan Galactic Inc.

This raises a really interesting point related to the algo.

When you get to a certain level of maturity, you can think about becoming a bitcoin sidechain. That means you can do away with mining, because it comes from Bitcoin.  BCR then becomes a bitcoin project, effectively. So the purple logo works great 

I don't like infinite supply. Fixed supply works for me. Maybe rebase around a number everyone is happy with?

[thelonecrouton]

So:

1. Incorporate as outlined by Coins101, 1 BCR = 1 nominal share
2. Concentrate all efforts on getting asset management and asseteer/customer interaction functional and easy to use
3. Demonstrate it working to a bunch of VC firms / ICO it in the real world*
4. BCR share price goes from 0.000004 BTC  to $1 in very short order.
5. Use new found $$$ to hone and polish product

Really, the potential upside is ridiculous.



*From zerohedge yesterday: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-29/top-silicon-valley-vc-laments-startups-being-funded-are-mostly-crap-largely-worthles

VC's are desperate for projects that aren't crap, that actually provide a real service and have a viable revenue stream.

[coins101]

So:

1. Incorporate as outlined by Coins101, 1 BCR = 1 nominal share
2. Concentrate all efforts on getting asset management and asseteer/customer interaction functional and easy to use
3. Demonstrate it working to a bunch of VC firms / ICO it in the real world*
4. BCR share price goes from 0.000004 BTC  to $1 in very short order.
5. Use new found $$$ to hone and polish product

Really, the potential upside is ridiculous.



*From zerohedge yesterday: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-29/top-silicon-valley-vc-laments-startups-being-funded-are-mostly-crap-largely-worthles

VC's are desperate for projects that aren't crap, that actually provide a real service and have a viable revenue stream.

Subtle difference:

1 BCR = 1 nominal share

1 BCR Masternode = Total Shares / (Total Masternodes * Masternode Collateral)

Then you can use the DAPP with the masternode voting mechanism to implement real world (quasi-)share voting

[coins101]

....
*From zerohedge yesterday: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-29/top-silicon-valley-vc-laments-startups-being-funded-are-mostly-crap-largely-worthles

VC's are desperate for projects that aren't crap, that actually provide a real service and have a viable revenue stream.

Being ahead of Zerohedge by a few days is an achievement level that has now been unlocked 

[thelonecrouton]

Subtle difference:

1 BCR = 1 nominal share

1 BCR Masternode = Total Shares / (Total Masternodes * Masternode Collateral)

Then you can use the DAPP with the masternode voting mechanism to implement real world (quasi-)share voting

What's the advantage over letting every BCR holder be a shareholder? BNs can still do their stuff, and can be accorded a Voting Share, with all wallets receiving proportional dividends each quarter or whatever - rather than blockchain-bloating daily payments - which 4 times a year would see a nice market price spike.

[coins101]

Subtle difference:

1 BCR = 1 nominal share

1 BCR Masternode = Total Shares / (Total Masternodes * Masternode Collateral)

Then you can use the DAPP with the masternode voting mechanism to implement real world (quasi-)share voting

What's the advantage over letting every BCR holder be a shareholder? BNs can still do their stuff, and can be accorded a Voting Share, with all wallets receiving proportional dividends each quarter or whatever - rather than blockchain-bloating daily payments - which 4 times a year would see a nice market price spike.

Legal problems.

If you consider each currency unit a share, then you are immediately into promoting shares over the internet.

Masternodes also have to be created and collateral put to one side. But you never actually hand over ownership of the collateral. So it's not really promoting shares, just voting rights and you can always get your money back (the base BCR currency units).

DAPP is also set-up for masternodes to vote. If you have a currency unit but don't have a mechanism to vote, then you're into situations of being unfairly treated. So, if you want a vote, get a masternode.

[thelonecrouton]

Legal problems.

If you consider each currency unit a share, then you are immediately into promoting shares over the internet.

I'm sure there are ways around that. Call them Network Support Tokens not 'shares', and call the 'dividends' Network Support Fees Payable, which is true enough, they're actively maintaning copies of the distributed ledger - in essence every running wallet is a subcontractor and what they do about legalities is their own affair.

First to admit I'm no lawyer though. But hey, we can actually play that angle at the VC meeting.

"As lawyers go, Crouton here makes a great ashtray. He just can't be relied upon to find his arse with both hands. So, naturally, part of the $70 million we're asking as investment would go to... whatever law firm gives you the biggest backhanders you recommend."

[bitcreditscc]

So, first we need to get the Asset Platform (native) working properly and user friendly. This can go hand in hand with the Loan Market.

I think this is achievable. Won't be easy though.

[coins101]

So, first we need to get the Asset Platform (native) working properly and user friendly. This can go hand in hand with the Loan Market.

I think this is achievable. Won't be easy though.

Err, what's the edifference?

The go to market proposition is the p2p loans book.  We just need a list of loans that people can choose to back.

To go with that, it's the reports required by the p2p associations. With the association application done, we can get in contact with a load of people who are interested in backing residential property loans. There are tons of them.

What's this asset thing and why can't it wait?

[bitcreditscc]

So, first we need to get the Asset Platform (native) working properly and user friendly. This can go hand in hand with the Loan Market.

I think this is achievable. Won't be easy though.

Err, what's the edifference?

The go to market proposition is the p2p loans book.  We just need a list of loans that people can choose to back.

To go with that, it's the reports required by the p2p associations. With the association application done, we can get in contact with a load of people who are interested in backing residential property loans. There are tons of them.

What's this asset thing and why can't it wait?

I'm looking from the coding PoV, none of this is trivial.

Let me try explain.... For native support of assets , we need to design and implement

1) A "coloring" scheme
2) Policy on how they are created , how many can exist , and if they are interchangeable with BCR or are just BCR with tags, and whether BCR converted to assets  can be returned to the base MS. Much like we have M0 , M1 etc
3) Re-design how transactions work (can it only be one type , can they be mixed etc )
4) Formulate consensus rules whether payments can be settled in any accepted valid blockchain asset/coin or something else
5) Yes, the code

For P2P loans book, design and implement

1) Communication between Lenders and Borrowers , in wallet .
2) Storage of the P2P loan book (on chain/offchain)
3) Decide on loan policy, (one lender one borrower or true P2P one borrower multiple lenders)
4) How do users decide who to trust with a loan (in progress ie ChainID and TrustDB)
5) Kneecapping / Rewards Policies
6) And again , the code 

BCR is a platform, as such it should allow various combos of infrastructure to allow a multitude of business opportunities.

Loan Book + Assets + Trust Engine == Secure Debt Facility
Assets + Loan Book + Verification + Trust Engine == Insurance
Verification + Trust engine == Brokerage
Bank API + All the above == Approved Fiat Gateway
All the above == Decentralized BCR-bay

Everytime you guys are posting and refining your ideas and introducing new ones, I'm already working out how and if code can actually do that.

 

This is going to be an epic few weeks/months of vodka coffee, google and github.

[coins101]

So, first we need to get the Asset Platform (native) working properly and user friendly. This can go hand in hand with the Loan Market.

I think this is achievable. Won't be easy though.

Err, what's the edifference?

The go to market proposition is the p2p loans book.  We just need a list of loans that people can choose to back.

To go with that, it's the reports required by themuch  associations. With the association application done, we can get in contact with a load of people who are interested in backing residential property loans. There are tons of them.

What's this asset thing and why can't it wait?

I'm looking from the coding PoV, none of this is trivial.

Let me try explain.... For native support of assets , we need to design and implement

1) A "coloring" scheme
2) Policy on how they are created , how many can exist , and if they are interchangeable with BCR or are just BCR with tags, and whether BCR converted to assets  can be returned to the base MS. Much like we have M0 , M1 etc
3) Re-design how transactions work (can it only be one type , can they be mixed etc )
4) Formulate consensus rules whether payments can be settled in any accepted valid blockchain asset/coin or something else
5) Yes, the code

For P2P loans book, design and implement

1) Communication between Lenders and Borrowers , in wallet .
2) Storage of the P2P loan book (on chain/offchain)
3) Decide on loan policy, (one lender one borrower or true P2P one borrower multiple lenders)
4) How do users decide who to trust with a loan (in progress ie ChainID and TrustDB)
5) Kneecapping / Rewards Policies
6) And again , the code  

BCR is a platform, as such it should allow various combos of infrastructure to allow a multitude of business opportunities.

Loan Book + Assets + Trust Engine == Secure Debt Facility
Assets + Loan Book + Verification + Trust Engine == Insurance
Verification + Trust engine == Brokerage
Bank API + All the above == Approved Fiat Gateway
All the above == Decentralized BCR-bay

Everytime you guys are posting and refining your ideas and introducing new ones, I'm already working out how and if code can actually do that.

 

This is going to be an epic few weeks/months of vodka coffee, google and github.

P2P loans is begging to be taken. I'd put that up at the top of the list.  Everything else can be done while we get lenders on boarded.  I've got a plan for that, but we can't do it without a viable application to a p2p association to give the lenders confidence.

Seriously, we can get so much newspaper press out of this it's unreal:

P2P lender BitCredit gives home buyers access to loans for deposits.

You'll be on TV, mortgage magazines, etc

[thelonecrouton]

Everytime you guys are posting and refining your ideas and introducing new ones, I'm already working out how and if code can actually do that.

 

This is going to be an epic few weeks/months of vodka coffee, google and github.

I go with cake and stackoverflow.com myself. Remember that not all of this needs to happen at once, it can be released bit by bit but basic p2p loans in v2.0 (even just on testnet) would be fantastic.

I envisioned the p2p lending working something like this:

1. Wallet user (Lender) is able to mark a % of their balance as available for lending if they wish. Wallet user (Lender) selects their risk profile and maybe their min interest rate - ie. has some say in who they will lend to.

-> Needs: UI checkbox and amount entry field, some means of storing lender prefs (on chain?) - Amount Borrowalbe either locked or sent to appropriate Risk Level Address - lender has option to pull out / withdraw funds or change preferred risk level somehow if funds not already loaned out.

2. Wallet user (Borrower) is credit scored by the code and presented with a list of single lenders willing to do business with them and/or an option to source the loan truly p2p based on what regular lending users have added to the available pot at various risk levels.

-> Needs: Basic working TrustDB / credit scoring code and client ability to pull suitable lenders from the lender DB and display them.

3. Borrower chooses Lender(s), picks loan amount and repayment terms, clicks GoForIt

-> Needs: Loan request message facility to lender or p2plenders. Check risk match, Lender themselves or network in case of p2p loan sends funds to borrower.

4. Borrower pays back Lender direct, or pays back lenders by paying to one address from which proportional shares to all lenders are sent. Or just make micropayments direct to all participating lenders in that loan?

-> Needs: Automated invoicing? GoForIt button.

5. In event of dispute, Lender requests Big Al's gang to sort things out, or network decides on behalf of p2p lenders to instigate Big Al's Tutelage & Chastisement Package.

-> Needs: Call Big Al button.

++ a whole crapload of other stuff.  

Do we enable all wallet users to mark funds as available for loan or just BNs? If possible I would go with the former, but... legailties... keep it BN for now perhaps if that speeds development and minimises legal voodoo.

If this could be demonstrated working in native BCR* with maybe just BNs as lenders at first, we could then add an in-wallet BTC/BCR facility (I think this should be done anyway**) and the same code template can be applied to BTC too, ie. BTC loans also, same schema. Suddenly we've got a $billions of market cap to provide p2p lending opportunities to anyone with some spare BTC.

*At this point at the latest we should take it to VC/ICO. And keep it closed source IMO, cryptognats will whine about that but nobody else gives a damn, and the blockchain is still an open ledger.


**I'm about as much of an actuary as I am a lawyer, but in order to prevent some whale coming along any buying the entire future mintage for peanuts, we could offer fresh superblock BCR something like...

1000 BCR @ current market price +10%
Each subsequent 1000 BCR at (cost of last 1000 BCR) + 2% cumulative

eg. CMP is 400 sats, 1000 BCR costs 440000 sats, 2000 BCR costs 44000 sats + (1000 * 400 * 1.12), 3000 BCR costs 44000 + (1000 * 400 * 1.14) + (1000 * 400 * 1.16) etc.  ... 100000 BCR BN package (50k collateral + 50k working capital) would cost about 0.8 BTC @ 400 sat base price, which is about 10% more than what 100k BCR would cost on Bittrex currently.



Thought I'd jot down some ideas while waiting for the oven timer to beep...   ***


***Dinner only slightly burned.

[coins101]

Note to self: eat before going to LTC's.

You missed out on the fiat aspect.

I'm OK with doing a blockchain report that can be manually executed against a bank account by a few admin people.  But this should be a short term workaround.

Or we could have this as a long-term approach to avoid having to put bank accounts into encrypted files on the tinternet.

[coins101]

Err, what happens at block 289857?

We now have some models to follow for the residential equity peer-to-peer loans:

The eligibility criteria for our Mortgage Equity Deposits are:

> Minimum deposit from you of 5%
> Up to 20% equity loan from our P2P lenders
> Maximum loan mortgage size of £1,000,000 [so, BitCredit could arrange upto £200,000 per customer]
> The mortgage must be taken out on a capital repayment basis with a maximum term of 25 years
> The property to be purchased must be the only property you own, will be your main residence and cannot be rented out
> While you can apply for a loan, you must have a mortgage offer that is ready to be drawn down before you can access the loan from our lenders
> For P2P loans from us that are over £20,000 you have to pay for an independent valuation
> You are required to provide ID details to a legal advisor on our approved list and pay the ID verification fee directly to them
> If the property is sold within 5 years, you must repay a minimum of the original P2P loan taken out OR the percentage of the equity loan taken out [so, our P2P lenders could share in any increase in the value of your property while the equity loan is still unpaid]
> The equity loan must be repaid within the period agreed between you and the P2P lenders

[coins101]

LTC, didn't you do some property development?

This stuff should be right up your street.

So, everyone on this thread should be able to relate to this P2P Equity deal. I know I would be keen to get something like this in order to help buy a property. I'd also be up for lending out some money on this type of deal, especially in the UK where property values have gone up over 170% in the last 15 years.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3431441/House-prices-jump-3-500-month-buyers-chase-limited-homes-sale.html

The other big issue is that price / earnings ratios are out of whack. You can't get a mortgage if your earnings are more than 3 to 4 times the value of the loan, but because house prices keep going up, the actual price earnings are nearly double that, so you need a big deposit to make you eligible for a loan:



This is a sweet spot of factors going on here:

> Rising property values
> Inaccessible Mortgage requirements
> Explosive growth in Peer-to-peer loans

These issues are global, too. Not every country has the same level of market dynamics, but there are enough markets to go after making BCR the only international player, at the moment. That's another sweet spot for lenders who want to access a wider market to invest their money overseas.

[coins101]

Taking on overseas lenders:

So this is going to be our BTC play.

If you want to lend money to people in another country other than yours, you must use Bitcoin.

This establishes commitment and certainty for our borrowers, while giving overseas players a chance to invest anywhere in the world.

For example, a loan in the UK, USA or China will be 100% fiat, to start with, but the lenders can provide funds via fiat or BTC (so, Chinese can invest in UK property loans).

The cleared fiat value of any BTC loan is the only figure we should accept. This takes away any risks on BTC price changes in the period between BTC being sent and it being cleared into fiat.

This also means that loan repayments should be in BTC, but we need to have some T&Cs to cover price volatility on the conversion price.

[bitcoinwonders010]

why are you talking to yourself, are you okay mate?

[coins101]

why are you talking to yourself, are you okay mate?

...


..

lol.

We need more bump bitches, is all.



Nearly 2,500 views 

That be about $500 on Google AdWords 

[bitcoinwonders010]

why are you talking to yourself, are you okay mate?

...


..

lol.

We need more bump bitches, is all.



Nearly 2,500 views 

That be about $500 on Google AdWords 

yea nearly 2500 views and you still the only one posting lol it says something