Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?  (Read 447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« on: January 26, 2015, 10:46:09 PM »

Is everyone here just interested in the price of BTS->USD and no one cares about BTC?

Or is it a chicken and egg situation and people will start doing cross-asset trading as soon as someone else does it first?

Either way, Im tired of seeing zero volume on what should be one of BitShares' flagship markets, and I want to run a MM bot right now.

Toast, is your bot that you wrote (and I think open sourced) suitable for this? Can I run it?

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2015, 11:10:02 PM »
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 11:17:33 PM by Empirical1.1 »

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3507
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2015, 11:28:46 PM »
There is no need to subsidize yield.   The only thing that is needed is massive buy/sell walls to provide liquidity. 
Nubits didnt waste money subsidizing yield, they just put up huge walls, and they got tons of volume from people looking to hedge BTC positions into fiat. 

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike

Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2015, 11:35:31 PM »

If we have both a live BitBTC and BitUSD feed, can't we have a live BitUSD/BitBTC pair feed active be doing the calculation? Can this been done for any BitAsset pairs?

Offline clayop

Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2015, 11:36:49 PM »

If we have both a live BitBTC and BitUSD feed, can't we have a live BitUSD/BitBTC pair feed active be doing the calculation? Can this been done for any BitAsset pairs?

Plus, relative order for bitAsset pairs. I think this will increase liquidity hugely.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2015, 11:38:21 PM »
We won't see any real internal exchange liquidity until we get relative orders and trading in light clients. Because it costs fees to cancel orders it gets a lot more complex to run profitable bots and spreads get higher. I still have no clue if there's going to be relative orders for crosspairs. I guess there won't be at first so bitBTC/bitUSD liquidity is still far off, but we could see decent bitasset/BTS liquidity.

In the end it's going to take a very long time before our decentralized exchange will become useful for trading for non-fanatics. The light wallet won't have trading support at first, so you will need a full node in order to use the internal exchange, which makes our decentralized exchange unable to compete with centralized exchanges.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2015, 11:51:38 PM »
There is no need to subsidize yield.   The only thing that is needed is massive buy/sell walls to provide liquidity. 
Nubits didnt waste money subsidizing yield, they just put up huge walls, and they got tons of volume from people looking to hedge BTC positions into fiat.

Maintaining a large & tight buy and sell walls costs a lot to subsidise no? If not, is the only reason we don't have them up because of reliable bots? Edit: Ok probably for reasons described by rune above.

Spending $20k over 3 months on a BitAsset yield promotion is comparatively very cheap.


Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2015, 11:52:13 PM »
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it (any more than short interest, if any exists, paid as yield already does).

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)

Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.

It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 11:55:19 PM by arhag »

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2015, 11:56:57 PM »
Because it costs fees to cancel orders it gets a lot more complex to run profitable bots and spreads get higher. I still have no clue if there's going to be relative orders for crosspairs. I guess there won't be at first so bitBTC/bitUSD liquidity is still far off, but we could see decent bitasset/BTS liquidity.

If my bot sells $100 worth of BitBTC for BitUSD at +5% above the real market price, why should transaction fees be significant at all, even if the bot is cancelling orders a few times a day?


Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2015, 11:58:51 PM »
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it.

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)

Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.

It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...

Yes. But BitAssets have been running for 6 months and people haven't done this shorting to themselves much.

I know subsidising yield doesn't get offset by the 3x BitAssets. The idea is that it's a promotion to kickstart the market. I believe a large part of our valuation is driven by the perception of how well we're doing at getting BitAsset adoption going - Gateways, Merchants, BitAsset CAP & turnover.

If our BitAssets still have no CAP in a month or two when BitGold & BitSilver by BitReserve comes out it will look very bad for us. If BitUSD rises above NuBits CAP it will look very good for us. So it's advertising and perception. BitAssets are a product, having a promotion to launch a product is pretty standard.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 12:01:37 AM by Empirical1.1 »

Offline merlin0113

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2015, 12:41:19 AM »
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it.

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)

Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.

It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...

Yes. But BitAssets have been running for 6 months and people haven't done this shorting to themselves much.

I know subsidising yield doesn't get offset by the 3x BitAssets. The idea is that it's a promotion to kickstart the market. I believe a large part of our valuation is driven by the perception of how well we're doing at getting BitAsset adoption going - Gateways, Merchants, BitAsset CAP & turnover.

If our BitAssets still have no CAP in a month or two when BitGold & BitSilver by BitReserve comes out it will look very bad for us. If BitUSD rises above NuBits CAP it will look very good for us. So it's advertising and perception. BitAssets are a product, having a promotion to launch a product is pretty standard.

We need someone to organize this "promotion" before it's too late. There are still plenty of bitshares believers hanging on here at.

Another chicken and egg situation is putting BTS listed on a mainstream exchange ASAP. I know the centralized exchange is bad, but at the time being we don't have a choice. Please at least think about this move.

Offline wesphily

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2015, 03:44:23 AM »
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it.

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)

Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.

It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...

Yes. But BitAssets have been running for 6 months and people haven't done this shorting to themselves much.

I know subsidising yield doesn't get offset by the 3x BitAssets. The idea is that it's a promotion to kickstart the market. I believe a large part of our valuation is driven by the perception of how well we're doing at getting BitAsset adoption going - Gateways, Merchants, BitAsset CAP & turnover.

If our BitAssets still have no CAP in a month or two when BitGold & BitSilver by BitReserve comes out it will look very bad for us. If BitUSD rises above NuBits CAP it will look very good for us. So it's advertising and perception. BitAssets are a product, having a promotion to launch a product is pretty standard.

We need someone to organize this "promotion" before it's too late. There are still plenty of bitshares believers hanging on here at.

Another chicken and egg situation is putting BTS listed on a mainstream exchange ASAP. I know the centralized exchange is bad, but at the time being we don't have a choice. Please at least think about this move.

What bitshares needs is somebody who is passionate about bitshares and has the ability to make uneducated people equally passionate. Then that person needs to talk to rich people with connections.

Till then, we will be the most innovative thing never used.

Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
    • View Profile
  • BTS: ags
Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2015, 04:55:02 AM »
not enough users

 

Google+