What's the prospect of other exchanges adopting the Quint as a trading pair? Or, actually and potentially way better....
...could you somehow create a smartcoin like "USDQ" on Bitshares, derived from the Quint, where it always stayed equal to $1 but it's value in relation to Quint would fluctuate based on the value of Gold at any given time (1 USDQ = $1 regardless of the price of gold, which would be equal to about 0.76 Quint if my math is correct, based on 1000 Quints per ounce and a $1300 price per ounce of Gold)
Same could be done for any major currency, as needed. That would be insane.
It would allow cryptos to be able to trade in a unit of measurement that was as stable as it's associated government backed fiat, while being full backed and redeemable in Gold, sent digitally across the world in 3 seconds, and should theoretically have strong liquidity because it is as liquid as gold (probably more b/c of the fractional ownership).
Thoughts @Stan?
Stop reading our playbook.
Rats. I thought that was a secret...
I have a hard time reading between the lines with you, Mr. Stan Larimer, but if that's true, thenMY BAD! I was just trying to add some value and food-for-thought as this project is very exciting on its own, and even more so since its leveraging Bitshares. I hope I didn't actually reveal anything that was under wraps.
Not bad! GREAT! Keep up the thinking. The Quint is a very versatile tool in the BitShares Arsenal!
Okay then, another thought :)
So, I've been thinking about the "spending your crypto" topic. Me, personally, I don't want to spend my BTS, BTC, ETH, EOS, etc in my day-to-day life. Why in the world would I want to dish out $10 worth of BTS (~40 BTS!) at Chik-fil-a for two kids meals, when you believe that same 40 BTS could easily be worth 10x that value? It seems like crazy thinking to spend [hopefully] appreciating assets on daily living.
But, the interesting thing about Quint is there isn't a max supply of the token. The token itself is only limited by the demand for it and the supply side (physical precious metals backing it) to fulfill that demand. So while it will likely appreciate in value b/c many believe gold & silver are way undervalued, it's not going to be nearly as volatile as cryptos.
It would be WAY easier for people to get their heads around spending the stable "USDQ" (idea from original post) unit of measurement, because it is 100% equivalent to the way we currently spend money. The USDQ doesn't change in dollar value in this hypothetical scenario.
So, I could imagine a situation where people onboard from fiat to Quint as a store of value and "bank on the blockchain", then trade from Quint to/from other crytpo assets (bts, eos, etc...) as outlined in your plans, and go in & out of the hypothetical USDQ for daily spending.
Exchanges and other crypto payment cards could leverage this as a true apples-to-apples cost basis and create a real, stable value crypto currency that is ultimately backed by actual physical precious metal assets.
Retailers would be crazy not to understand and feel better about accepting that, rather than a wildly +/- fluctuating crypto value.
Ok - I didn't read your playbook, but hopefully this can add to it :)
I think your idea was what they thought of as the quint card they talk about in the whitepaper, for the card to work, that coin, USDQ, EURQ, etc..., needs to exist
1 USDQ = $1 regardless of the price of gold is not possible as they are two different values with Gold is more of a store/use of value unlike the USD which is a note (FRN) that "is legal tender for all debts public and private" which is debt based and lost more of its value. Having possibly lost 99.2% of its value more or less in over 200 years.
The Quint's main pair should also not be to BTS but that of (bit)GOLD to be of a more stable relationship and not a main market of potential loss of value. There should also not be a transaction fee. For such a percentage opens to long term failure as any market with such percentage fees may eventually break after thirty cycles whatever those cycles may be.
I think you may need to reread the original post, and my original comment. You are missing the point or haven't fully understood what's being suggested.