For a guy who claims to be now silicon valley, where break things fast mentality goes, your conservative suit is strapped tight.
I agree-- in all practicality this will be a second generation iteration. I just wanted to introduce this that non-expiring contracts in Truthcoin is possible with LMSR. Let's say the above works... (again bootstrapping is the difficult part)
It stumbled upon me that if this were to be implemented in a Truthcoin/Augur market, this would take some wind out of the parasitic leeching argument. I'm sure there are plenty other arguments for why Augur won't succeed on Ethereum, not in my interest talking about that. But, why does this stop parasitic leeching?
The parasitic argument is classically akin to the physical CD vs pirating mp3 debate back in the late 90s and early 00's. Like votecoin owners, artists had their labour just stolen from them because their music was now easy shared via the bitcoin's precessors Napster and Bittorrent. This problem was fatal to the music industry. Similar to how fatal parasitic leeching is to votecoins. What saved the music industry was a unified platform called Itunes. Its slogan even popularized this upheavel against the music industry: rip, mix, burn. In our case its leech, feed and profit.
I think to look for solutions to the leeching issue, we should look at the program that ended the debate. While charging the same rate as normal albums, iTunes was able to bring in more operating profit than traditional retail outlets were because of the reduction in manufacturing, distribution costs, brick-n-mortar shelve space, etc. iTunes popularized having complementary and synergistic devices, applications, and interfaces. As iTunes retained users on their music platform I think a non-expiring LMSR market, if executed on properly, would retain value on that prediction market system.
If Truthcoin/Augur were to have non-expiring LMSR on their markets, this would keep indefinite liquidity pools in that proxy asset and thereby attract speculators and traders who want to trade on that market. That equates to trading fees that go right back to the Votecoin owners. Fees to authors could also be given instead to the votcoin owners. The fiat world alone now commands billions in trading. Then there would also be interal transfer fees as well. At micros of the transaction fees now, with millions upon millions of daily movement, this could be like cash reserves that earn interest for the votecoin holders. To execute on this ecosystem takes enormous foresight, planning, and coordination. And not every company can it.
I see many uses for non-expiring (NE-LMSR) markets. It can be used as a true stablecoin for adaption into enabling nexus-applications and purchases. Think Bitfinex style leveraged lending, interest earning banking services that come from these margin trade accounts (especially important for the 16B a year remittance market), bond markets, bond interest rate swaps, p2p lending, and options markets. All of this has to be integrated together for it work. All the savings accounts have to be placed in non-expiring USD, CNY, GBP, EUR. It also requires someone to tightly design the layer above Votecoins to keep this consciously in focus.
The better question is in terms of stablecoins, why would anyone want to retain those coins on a parasitic contract, when their liquidity and volume is very low and costly? Why would someone in Africa take that chance in accepting a Stablecoin USD that has very little trading and could disappear tomorrow? Will those in Africa and even the future generations ahead be like us when it comes to banking, taking nuances from the personal computer revolution that Apple started? Will they look for a loosely closed system approach for all their banking needs because interoperability is so much smoother, user friendly, accessible and convenient?
Its the progression from financial services into prediction market services. I think prediction market developers should be pondering all these things if they're looking out ahead. What are your thoughts?