Have AES holder vote for a grant to double the total amount of AES to see who’s still actively following and in favor of such an attempt to fund development.
Offer those AES and the ones currently kept by @woodstockmerkle in an ICO.
If funding goal is reached: fund development. Make Augeas a DEX.
If funding goal isn’t reached: refund. Game over. At least for now.
That sounds really good given the circumstances!
I have something in my mind that deals with selling AES, but I’ll come back to that later. You can already guess from the tl;dr
A pity that you failed merging it, but an acceptable gift that you are now even more knowledgeable!
Would a different blockchain structure that is built on balances and not transactions solve some or even all of the problems that are associated with the huge memory consumption?
If you don’t have lots of tiny UTXO as a result from splitting into ‘voting lots’ this makes memory use more economical, right?
Are you familiar with dPOS?
If you are thinking about a new blockchain design why not improve the voting process at the same time?
Voting with shares in a rolling window is much less flexible than voting for delegates who then can act as representatives.
But maybe that goes to far.
I don’t know how much resources such a transformation would cost. Ah, costs. One more topic I’ll get back to later
I especially like the part with the cross-asset manipulations
Why would you prefer having blockchain assets for each external asset to listing them as native assets?
I mean, for each unit of BTC, PPC, LTC that gets traded, a deposit to Augeas multisig must have happened.
In the end people trade native tokens with the help of Augeas as middleman.
Come to think of it another scenario what can be done with Augeas:
in addition to trading on Augeas, customers can use it like they use Shapeshift, if they don’t want to have a trading account on Augeas.
- Augeas provides them with an address where to send x BTC to receive y PPC together with an expiry
- customer sends x BTC
- Augeas sends y PPC
- the maximum amount and rate depends on the orders that are on Augeas’ order book
People putting orders at the book can make money by putting them slightly above the market rate.
Augeas can make money by the fees for placing the orders.
Customers can save money compared to Shapeshift, if the Augeas rate is better.
Central exchange risk is mitigated. Augeas is a DAO and the funds are by design always in multisig. Only few exchanges support that and hope that their INFOSEC is strong enough.
Additional risks like recently seen at btc-e come on top.
Using Augeas isn’t free of risk, but has way less single points of failure than non-DEX once complete.
Augeas can be attractive even with higher rates, because it has a smaller risk. I just don’t know how many potential customers are aware of that and favor paying a slightly higher rate over losing all funds in the transaction.
I see some overlap between Augeas, if it intends to be a decentralized exchange and Indicium.
But I don’t see them as competitors and I am more intrigued by the potential synergy. After all Indicium needs to trade tokens and having a DEX at hand that trades native tokens is great. Indicium could even try to be maker and not only taker, because the trading bots that are developed for Indicium are aware of market rates. If they can plug into a kind of compatible API the technical requirements should be fulfilled.
And Augeas on the other hand can offer Indicium shares or EFT tokens providing them with a decentralized market.
This is just a brainstorm. I bet there’s more to be had.
I hope others from the Peercoin/Indicium community see this similarly.
I’m well aware that a lot of what Augeas can do can be done with Peerassets.
The major drawback of Augeas is a benefit as well.
It runs an own blockchain that needs to be developed and secured on one hand.
But on the other hand the parameters of the blockchain are completely in control by Augeas.
That statement together with
made me think of a way to supply me and others who are interested in Augeas with AES while providing Augea with funding.
You’ve read it already: an ICO!
I’m still willing to buy AES, but I won’t buy any AES from one of the current holders. I’m only interested in AES which provide AUgeas with funds.
A kind of escrowed ICO would be great and I consider either a well-known escrow provider or an established and working multisig group a prerequisite for that.
Some more food for thought
- Do we plan to go with a DEX?
Like I said, I see room even with atomic swaps. Augeas saves people from syncing blockchains except for Augeas.
- What would we consider the MVP?
- How much effort (time, USD) is still required to build the Augeas MVP?
- What parts need to be coded?
- Who can do what parts?
- Who is interested in participating/funding this?
- Is Augeas capable of issuing AES as grant?
- I suppose the AES holders would like to see a finished product, but I don’t know how much money they can afford to and want to put into it. At the moment the AES they hold are more or less worthless. They are only full of potential.
Additional investors will wonder why they shall fund the development from here, but can only get access to one third of all shares. At least that’s what crossed my mind when I thought about investing so you have that as first-hand experience. I suggest making a 50k AES grant to increase the total number to 100k to have 65k AES for sale.
- An AES grant to increase the total number of shares and reduce the share rate of the current holders eases that concern, but introduces a new challenge: how to distribute the AES?
If the current AES holders are interested in the long-term success, they will not only consider voting for such a grant to vastly increase the total number, but consider investing in the ICO, buying AES as well. Doing this they maintain a good share in the corporation and provide it with funds hence increasing the value of their AES.
We are quite far from it, but I already want to recommend that a big part of the proceeds from the ICO is kept in multisig bitUSD or a NuSafe like way.
I’d be interested to get some feedback on where to go with Augeas and how to get there.
It would especially be nice to get feedback from AES holders, but as nobody knows who they are one can only speculate who replies.
One milestone if we go more or less in the direction I drafted would be a grant. Ideally I’d see that granted to a multisig address of the multisig group, but I figure it’s already too much effort to create such a group, if the outcome is that uncertain.
@woodstockmerkle would you be willing to handle such a grant in case we decide to follow that road? I strongly dislike putting that much responsibilty on single shoulders, but as I said before: the AES are in the current state of Augeas near worthless. They will already be in multisig once this dream assumes shape.
The next milestones then would be creating a multisig group (we already know that the AES holders don’t sleep by then) and preparing an ICO.
I sense a potential to make this your top labor