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: If we are a decentralized Exchange how and who will issue new pegged assets?  (Read 328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BTS: shentist

to issue new assets like "BTC" or "USD" you need 500.000 BTS

so i like to the a couple of crypto coins like LTC, DOGE, Ripple, Darkcoin, Nxt on our internal exchange.

the question is how will this happen? i am assuming no one will issue this assets, because no one will profit from issuing it. how can we do it? Would be a hardfork needed to
integrate them without fees?

so if this is not solved i would like to see a solution maybe the delegates can vote for new pegged assets without the fees.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12175
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Anyone can:
Code: [Select]
wallet_asset_create <symbol> <asset_name> <issuer_name> <description> <maximum_share_supply> <precision> [public_data] [is_market_issued]   Creates a new user issued asset
.... [is_market_issued]
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline svk

Anyone can:
Code: [Select]
wallet_asset_create <symbol> <asset_name> <issuer_name> <description> <maximum_share_supply> <precision> [public_data] [is_market_issued]   Creates a new user issued asset
.... [is_market_issued]
Yes anyone can but the issue is you need to pay 500k BTS to do so, and that's a bit steep for something you have no control over.

But actually, RIPPLE would only cost 500 BTS, but then it wouldn't be the same symbol as the real ripple..

We also have some market assets already that were added by mistake by someone wanting to create normal assets..
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline toast

The price will probably have to change
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BTS: shentist
i think we need some sort of vote to get pegged assets into existence for free. We should just take fees for UIA and the pegged for free but they have voted into existence

i would like to include DOGE, LTC etc. but i would be insane if i throw 1.000.000 BTS away

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
The price will probably have to change

What about that proposal that theoretical (I think) made a while back, for all 4 letter names to be available and come into existence when delegates agree on a pegged asset description? Did that go anywhere?

Offline theoretical

What I've wanted to do for a long time is implement UIA with custom feed authority.  Let anyone register a market-based UIA and let the issuer specify a feed authority, an account or set of accounts that can set the feed value.  Shorts and longs then bet against each other on the feed.  Then have a process for transitioning that to a delegate-based feed when the market is big enough.

Let good feed ideas enter the system without having to convince a majority of delegates.  Anyone with a feed and an idea should be able to put it out there, and people who like it can trade on it as long as they can find a counterparty.  As long as the DAC collects fees from the whole business and delegates aren't overburdened, we should enable people who want to trade BitLTC or BitDOGE or BitFloridaSwampland.  The current system is bottlenecked on the delegates having to all run a feed script for every market-based asset.

Yes, relying on un-accountable non-delegates to provide the feed requires centalization and trust -- perhaps too much centralization and trust -- but people will know up front that those are the rules for MBUIA and should invest accordingly.

But we have to balance between getting 1.0 out and dreaming up new features.  If we keep on adding new features, then the Big Release will be really awesome but it won't happen 'til 2025 and Ethereum, Ripple and everybody else will have eaten our lunch.
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BTS: shentist
What I've wanted to do for a long time is implement UIA with custom feed authority.  Let anyone register a market-based UIA and let the issuer specify a feed authority, an account or set of accounts that can set the feed value.  Shorts and longs then bet against each other on the feed.  Then have a process for transitioning that to a delegate-based feed when the market is big enough.

Let good feed ideas enter the system without having to convince a majority of delegates.  Anyone with a feed and an idea should be able to put it out there, and people who like it can trade on it as long as they can find a counterparty.  As long as the DAC collects fees from the whole business and delegates aren't overburdened, we should enable people who want to trade BitLTC or BitDOGE or BitFloridaSwampland.  The current system is bottlenecked on the delegates having to all run a feed script for every market-based asset.

Yes, relying on un-accountable non-delegates to provide the feed requires centalization and trust -- perhaps too much centralization and trust -- but people will know up front that those are the rules for MBUIA and should invest accordingly.

But we have to balance between getting 1.0 out and dreaming up new features.  If we keep on adding new features, then the Big Release will be really awesome but it won't happen 'til 2025 and Ethereum, Ripple and everybody else will have eaten our lunch.

great ideas to consider

we need a better way to react faster. it is like a big oiltanker right now

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
What I've wanted to do for a long time is implement UIA with custom feed authority.  Let anyone register a market-based UIA and let the issuer specify a feed authority, an account or set of accounts that can set the feed value.  Shorts and longs then bet against each other on the feed.  Then have a process for transitioning that to a delegate-based feed when the market is big enough.

Don't forget to allow setting a custom margin call limit too! (And get rid of the initial collateral requirement.) Let people choose what level of black swan risk they want to tolerate (at the cost of lower leverage for shorts which means less short interest, if any, will be offered and a more difficult time to obtain the assets in the first place).

Also, separate out the price feed authority from the BitAsset. I want to be able to create multiple BitAssets that can use the same feed authority. In fact, I want to be able to mathematically combine the median feeds from various feed authorities. For example, imagine a feed authority publishing the USD/BTS price and another publishing the Gold/USD price. I want to be able to make a BitAsset that multiplies the median price feeds from those two feeds together to create a BitGold variant that might have a higher margin call limit like 300%.

Also, allow the BitAsset to specify the asset type that acts as the collateral. I would like to create a BitEUR variant that sets the feed to a EUR/USD price feed from some feed authority, set the collateral asset as BitUSD, and the margin call limit as 105%. This might be an interesting asset for currency traders who want high leverage.

Further discussion of this proposal here and here.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 10:17:21 PM by arhag »

 

Google+