Here is the main thread and my post from it…
I think the power in PeerAssets is not only its simplicity, but the ability of businesses and organizations to freely move their assets between blockchains. The blockchain agnostic nature of PeerAssets is a major selling point. I have a feeling that assets have not become more used by businesses and organizations because people are unsure whether the network they choose will still be around in the future. Things change so fast in the world of crypto and a network that once seemed promising gets replaced by a better version. Organizations don’t want to fear having their assets stuck or left behind on an abandoned network. That scenario would be devastating to any business it happened to.
The ability to move assets to another network if it becomes necessary could be one of the biggest things preventing businesses from committing to setup their own cryptoassets. If we remove that cause for worry, we could see a lot more organizations jumping in. Peercoin could possibly be the preferred blockchain for assets due to its focus on long-term security and sustainability. Asset holders want a stable and reliable blockchain to host their assets on and that’s exactly what Peercoin offers.
The PeerAsset protocol might also be of interest to NuShareholders. Remember, we always need to work on finding new ways of naturally destroying NuBits. Not only does that increase profits for Nu, it makes it easier to maintain our various currency pegs. As businesses or organizations create, transact and vote with their assets, NuBits would need to be destroyed through transaction fees, eroding the NuBit supply and helping to generate profit for Nu.
Asset holders would also receive the benefit of using a price stable cryptocurrency with their assets, which would especially be important when it comes to distributing dividends to asset holders.
PeerAssets require no hard or soft fork, so there is no need for our developers to maintain the feature in the Nu protocol.
What do you guys think about this?
What s the diff between peershares?
Peershares are DAOs & DACs on their own blockchains. PeerAssets live on an existing blockchain like Peercoin or Nu and burn PPC or NBT as transaction fees in order to send assets or vote. PeerAssets also don’t need to worry about security or distribution, where it’s very important to make sure Peershares are decentralized. Crowdfunding is not handicapped by security concerns with PeerAssets like it is with Peershare distribution.
So we could create Nu on top of PeerAssets and distribute the shares exactly the same way it was distributed as a fork of PeerShares? But in that case it would not solve the issue of a potential unbalanced distribution if ever there was with Nu.
I think you might be misunderstanding me. Let’s say somebody wanted to raise some money to start their own business. They would download a special client and use it to create their own PeerAssets. Once they determine how many assets they needed to create and other info, they would then sell shares to people who wanted to invest. Once all shares are sold, the person could then use the crowdfunded money to start their business. If the shareholders have a say in how the business runs, they can vote with their assets to make decisions. If the company makes profit, the owner would distribute dividends to all his asset holders. The asset holders themselves could trade their assets back and forth on exchanges or with other people, just like other cryptos.
The PeerAssets themselves would be hosted on a blockchain like Peercoin. You wouldn’t be able to mint with your assets, as there’s no need to. Security of the blockchain would be taken care of by people minting with their Peercoins. PeerAssets would all be riding on top of Peercoin’s blockchain and asset holders wouldn’t need to worry about security. As long as the host network is properly decentralized and people are minting, then the assets on top of Peercoin would be secure.
If you wanted to create a new Peershares network, you would need to make sure that your share distribution is decentralized enough, or else you could run into security problems. Fundraising with Peershares can be problematic because you might not be able to find enough people willing to buy shares so that the network is properly decentralized and secure.
For example, let’s say you wanted to raise $100k by selling Peershares, but you could only find enough buyers to raise $50k. Then one buyer contacts you wanting to purchase the remaining $50k worth of shares. You wouldn’t be able to sell those $50k worth of shares though because giving half of all shares to one individual would put the network’s security at risk. As long as you can find enough share buyers to make the Peershares network decentralized enough then you’re good, but if you can’t find enough people willing to buy then Peershares aren’t going to work for you when it comes to raising money.
That is where PeerAssets would come in. Because the security of the network is taken care of by Peercoin minters rather than PeerAsset holders, it doesn’t matter what the distribution of PeerAssets is. A person could distribute 75% of all assets to one individual willing to buy them and it wouldn’t impact security at all. It would impact the outcome of shareholder voting if one individual held that many shares, but not security.
That is why PeerAssets are better for raising money. However, they are only good at acting like simple assets. PeerAssets would not work in cases where advanced customization is required like Nu and B&C, but it’s perfect in a situation where somebody wants to start a business or simply raise money by distributing shares in that business. The only purpose of the shares in these cases would be to track ownership. Advanced customization like DAOs and DACs would require Peershares.
Now, if PeerAsset holders wanted to send assets to somebody else, they would need to pay a transaction fee in Peercoin, which would be destroyed. If asset holders needed to vote or distribute dividends, they would also need to pay a transaction fee. In each case, Peercoin would need to be burned as a fee. This would make Peercoin more scarce over time, helping to fight inflation.
What I was suggesting is that Nu take on the PeerAsset protocol as well. This means that “NuAssets” would be hosted on top of the Nu blockchain and all transaction fees would be paid in NuBits. Because transaction fees are burned, any NuBits paid in fees would be burned. Hosting NuAssets would create a natural way to erode the NuBit supply, thus generating profit for NuShareholders and making it easier to maintain our various pegs.
Businesses may want to create assets on Nu instead, because it means they could distribute all their company dividends using NuBits, which are price stable and better for dividend distribution. So it would not only destroy NuBits through asset transaction fees, it would increase NuBits demand because of companies wanting to buy NuBits in order to distribute price stable dividends to their shareholders.
And best of all, from the whitepaper it seems that no hard fork of the Nu protocol is required. If you wanted the advantages of long-term security and sustainability, you would create your PeerAssets on top of Peercoin. If you wanted the advantages of paying price stable dividends to your shareholders, you would choose Nu to host your assets. PeerAssets and NuAssets could also be traded on B&C Exchange as cryptosecurities and help BlockShareholders profit.
In my opinion, there is equivalence between security and percentage of the whole distribution you own in PoS.
If you have 75% of the organization, i imagine you would be able to double spend, unless what you can vote for is very limited.
So what can you vote for in peerassets?
Also what could be a NuAsset?
That would only be true if PeerAssets were capable of minting blocks. They’re not. As I explained above, the host network provides the security for the blockchain and the assets that run on top of it. Assets are not used for minting blocks, therefore an uneven distribution has no effect on security.
Also, voting with assets is not the same as voting in Nu and B&C. In both, votes are added to the blockchain through minting. Since assets can’t mint blocks, the method for voting needs to be different. The different methods for voting are described in the PeerAssets whitepaper.
All voting in PeerAssets would be similar to motion voting in Nu, meaning voting can’t activate anything in the protocol like grants or interest rates. All it can do is measure shareholder consensus and that’s it. It could be used by shareholders looking to direct their business in new areas or make rules, just like we use motion voting here.
As described in the whitepaper, PeerAssets can be used for things like bonds, equity in corporations or even tracking of real life objects. It would be best to read the whitepaper first and then Peerchemist could answer any further questions you had on it.
Read this article, which was recently posted on Peercointalk chat. There’s lots of use cases besides equity, many which I didn’t even think of, like coupons, loyalty points, game tokens, etc… They can even be used as promotional tools. Each use case would provide a unique way for users to voluntarily destroy NuBits…
Peerchemist posted his project roadmap for PeerAssets. Please help with funding if you can…
Proposed project roadmap:
please note that this is relative and will greatly depend on my available spare time.
- Implement tools for the job.
Implement simple python library for interaction with Peercoin blockchain. This will serve as a backend for the application. This code will be left to be used by all the future projects that utilize Peercoin blockchain and need custom transactions or OP_RETURN read/write.
This will be most labor intensive piece of the puzzle.
Estimated time to complete: up to 5 weeks.
- Implement command line utility to issue and transact with assets.
This will serve as a platform for first tests and will allow final definition of the standard through testing. It will be deployed on Peerbox as part of peerbox command. Such utility will also be first public release but will be contained to Peercoin testnet for start.
Estimated time to complete: 2 weeks
- Expand functionality of backend to support multisig assets.
Estimated time to complete: 2 weeks
- Coordinate integration into PeerKeeper by hrobeers.
With protocol strictly defined and tested so far it is time to release it to wider public, and is there better platform than nice and elegant web based wallet? At this point I guess that PeerKeeper will continue with separate but compatible implementation.
Estimated time to complete: 2 weeks
- Expand functionality to enable dividend payout and shareholder voting.
Estimated time to complete: 3-4 weeks
- Final polishing and launch on Peercoin mainnet.
Estimated time to complete: 2-3 weeks
- Issue “ħopium” (ħ) currency as a PeerAssets based secondary currency running on Peercoin chain.
This will be satirical move in essence, commenting on the state of community and Peercoin in general. Also, it will allow community to see what PeerAssets can do beside assets. I imagine this currency to be used as tipping currency on forum, reddit and twitter. I will need help with forum, reddit and twitter tip bots at this point.
Estimated time to complete: up to 4 weeks
Port to Bitcoin blockchain, implement tools to move the asset deck from chain to chain.
This might cover some other chains like Litecoin, depending on the interest.
Figure out how-to and implement blockchain identity based on this technology.
This means that it should be possible to send Peercoins to me by writing @Peerchemist into address bar in PeerKeeper.
- Experiment with technology to deliver DNS solution to Peercoin chain (copy what Namecoin does).
*Something even cooler than all the above but I will keep it secret for now.
Code will be published and updated each time I pass those milestones. This will consume a lot my time and as this is open-source project and can not be monetized I ask the community to fund my work. You can do that via Peer4commit: https://peer4commit.com/projects/178
The same fund will also be used to fund some external work if required.