Talk:Smartbond (monetary system)

Article expansion

I made a major expansion to the Smartbond article today, so that article would now includ the (now somewhat common) use of the term in the bond market in the finance arena. Added prose with a bunch of sources, and broke the article into two sections: one to handle the bond market use of the term, and the other to describe the existing prose in the article that described a smartbond in the context of a monetary system.

I also tagged a bit of the older/existing material as needing sources, and invited the original contributor to add some sources. That has now happened. Good start on a better article, one hopes. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The concept of 'smart bonds' (or smart-bonds) addressed in the added material does not in fact have a direct relation to the original topic of this article, and as such the two subjects had better not be covered in the same page. Given that smart bond is really short for 'bond smart contract', I believe the most appropriate place to cover this subject should be on the smart contract page (the spelling, as clear from the cited articles, is 'smart bond' or 'smart-bond', not actually 'smartbond', so having it on this page is in any case not appropriate).

I have added a mention of smart bonds in the smart contract article, and would invite the author to continue contributing there.

Judging that the term smart bond has mainly been used in the context of an experimental project by UBS, which they later expressed to "not plan to bring the platform to market in the short term", the concept has some way to go before becoming common in finance or in the bond market. I can also corroborate this from my experience in the industry.

In judging how much prominence to give it, I would suggest to get some idea of the total issuance of all such smart bonds to date (assuming it is not nil), keeping in mind the bond market is multi-trillion dollar in notional value. Happy editing.

Noegenesis (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've moved out material on smart bond contracts as explained above, since this article was in an inconsistent state for a number of days now. Should definitely incorporate some more of this into the smart contract article from the history. Some points such as the faster settlement are relevant, especially from a financial perspective, to smart contracts more generally but not properly addressed in the smart contract article currently.

Noegenesis (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

BRD on massive deletion of sourced material

The term "smartbond" is clearly used for more than one thing. Both were represented in the article, and both had sources, although one of them needs a bit of summary in the lede.

User:Noegenesis made a WP:BOLD edit, and deleted entirely one of the two uses of the term. Since no consensus for the change had been developed on the Talk page. I have reverted the change per WP:BRD process.

So now, let's get that Discussion underway, the D of the BRD process. N2e (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with considering various ways of how the two disparate smartbond topics might be handled in Wikipedia. At the time I came to this article, with multiple sources describing one particular notable use of the term "smartbond" in the finance area, the article was rather poorly sourced on the other meaning of the term (the "Smartbond" monetary system).

I considered creating a new article for the alternate use, but it was unclear that the "Smartbond" monetary system would stand muster as a separate article in teh condition it was in, and made the decision to build Wikipedia content by making this article cover both concepts. After all, they are both, literally, smartbonds, which in the singular, is the name of this article. Of course, there are other ways it could be done, but it should certainly be discussed before all that sourced content is removed.

For example, it could be that there should be two separate Wikipedia articles, one for Smartbond (monetary system and one for Smartbond (finance), where the existing article becomes a disambig page which can point at the two articles. I had thought that, perhaps, there was insufficient material for two separate articles and that the reader might be best served to have a single article describe both distinct uses of the term. There are other possibilities, of course, and other editors may want to discuss them.

However, in my view, it is clear that the topic ought to be discussed on the Talk page first, and consensus gained, probably with more editors than just the two involved to date (one of whom is me, and one of whom is the creator of this article two months ago).

Let's discuss. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a Request for comment in order to get more editors looking at the question. N2e (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the discussion was already under way in the section above. Since there was no reply for some time (3 days including the message on my personal talk page), I assumed that the matter was agreed and proceeded with my proposal to not have the material in question on this page but rather on the smart contract page. In terms of following the WP:BRD process, I would have to say that my actions are inline (as per "if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit") while your revert was out of line (as per "BRD is never a reason for reverting"). As such please kindly undo your revert while the discussion is still ongoing. This also has the advantage of presenting readers with an article in a more consistent state in the intervening time.

Good in any case to have you now engaged in the conversation. If you could go ahead and address the points I raised specifically, I think it shouldn't be difficult to reach a consensus on what should be a straight-forward matter. I've split my points into numbered items below to better focus the discussion.

Noegenesis (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Should this article include both distinct uses of the term "smartbond"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this discussion as both arguments stated are in favour of no, and the discussion is seeing very little activity. The benefits of smart bond contracts (which anyway apply more generally) are now incorporated in the smart contract article, and the UBS experimentation is also referenced there. Noegenesis (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the smartbond article include both uses of the term "smartbond", the one for a "Smartbond" as a usage related to monetary systems and also for the term "smartbond" as used in finance? N2e (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

0) The simplest answer here is: no, because the spellings don't match. In the second case (the term for bond smart contract), the spelling is either "smart bond" or "smart-bond" but not "smartbond". This can be verified readily as searching for "smartbond" in any of the sources cited returns no results.

The question is then where would be the correct place to address the subject of smart bonds on Wikipedia. It could be a) in its own article (either Smart_bond or Smart-bond), or b) on the smart contract page. I would say the superior option is b), for the following reasons:

1) A significant part of the information added to this article regarding smart bonds, actually applies more generally to smart contracts - essentially all the new material apart from the History section, in particular regarding removing the back office and faster settlement. It would therefore be more valuable to have this information on the more visible smart contract page itself, rather than on its own page.

2) If bonds are given their own smart bonds page, then so too should any number of other smart contract analogues of financial instruments: smart futures, smart shares, smart swaps, etc. Since in principle any financial instrument can be implemented as a smart contract, and there are sure to be many initiatives in this space, this would imply several separate pages. This would lead to many articles with material that is spread very thin, when it could be exposed more coherently as part of the smart contract article.

Noegenesis (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be a Economy, trade and companies RfC, not a Maths, science and technology RfC. Roches (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Roches. But I don't think it is exclusively that. It seems to be both economics related and also computer science related (which, as I understand it, is a part of "Maths, science and tech". Is there are way to list it in both? Or must one and only one RfC section be selected? N2e (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to request feedback on an RfC for multiple categories. This seems to be a way of creating money from nothing in a world where lack of money still causes untold suffering. I would've ignored the article, but it contains 'bond' and doesn't make it clear it means a financial instrument and not a stabilizing connection between molecules. I was expecting some alternative-medicine thing, actually. Roches (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• No in answer to the RfC as stated. Wikipedia has articles on subjects. Two distinct subjects should not be shoehorned into one article, just because the usual words for them are the same (or similar). How the words is spelled is irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup

The material exists in two articles now, this one (Smartbond (monetary system)) and also Smartbond (finance). Both are sourced, and meet WP:GNG, and both have a bit less than a half-dozen sources. I have created a Smartbond disambig page.

Thanks for input on the RfC. N2e (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)