Author Topic: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume  (Read 10019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

yeah, I've been seriously considering OPENBTC myself.
use of OPENBTC helps Bitshares and CCEDK.
helping CCEDK helps boost the OBITS value, and so on.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

nope... the fake liquidity bot is keeping the same volumes, while the polo volume is going down. That's all.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

Offline noisy

Quote
- the gateways can not make money if they are trading bitassets so where is the incentive for this?

This is not true. As far as I understand gateways (like metaexchange/shapesift) earn money not by fees, but thanks to spread.

I describe here, how in my opinion gateways should work: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19652.0.html
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
many people - many visions - more views!

- the UIA is good to transfer without high fees or spread into bitshares
- the bitAssets have to be created, so if no assets available no one can buy them - the advantage is clearly no counterparty risk besides wrong feedprices!

- the gateways can not make money if they are trading bitassets so where is the incentive for this?

if we could come up with something that all the fees collected in a bitassets goes to some accounts it would be different. lets say openledger, blocktrades, metaexchange can convert all the tokens outside of bitshares into internal tokens. say bitBTC:BTC, then with some "magic" this Gateways can make money from the fees from the internal bitAsset markets as well, but i dont know how this could be achieved with
the current design.

Offline Pheonike



Looks like META has the proper model for the current form of the DEX.  The META/Shapeshift model seems to be the one that will flourish under the DEX. It one step and less confusing.


Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
My guess is people are stressing because they thought CCEDK would be the frontend and run on top of OpenLedger, which would also have many other exchanges running on top of it with the merged orderbooks. However they currently see CCEDK and OpenLedger as separated entities which are not related. I think a post from you explaining you're in the process of transferring CCEDK to OpenLedger could ease some minds. An example of that would be OPENDOGE:BTS market I think.

This. I'm a bit confused too... it was communicated that the exchange would move on chain, not offer Gateways. I thought gateways were the first step, but it looks like it'll end there?

Offline GaltReport

As a basic user, I used the blocktrades gateway once or twice (I assume openledger works similarly) until I decided that It was too cumbersome.  The last thing I want to do after using a "gateway" is to have to sell something again (TRADE BTC) in yet another market to finally get what I want.  The only "gateways" that make sense for me are things like metaexchange.info which go directly into your BTS account.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
They do not do it that way because bm's design and sells pitch promised them fees from running their own tokens. So it will continue to be like that until THE MARKET shows them that this is unreasonable and people want BTC to bitBTC direct conversion, as it is the only way that makes sense from their point of view.

So in more practical terms the exchanges will either switch to that model and find other ways to make money or will just holding on to the token model making their fees on no volume (aka not making  fees because of tiny volumes )
I totally agree here. An exchange running on bitshares can still make their profit from being a gateway from bitbtc to btc which would be pretty same thing as a regular centralized exchange that requires a percentage for withdrawals

The only reason to use ious instead would be legal concerns .. thats why i wonder why we now see OLBTC IOUs and not see bitbtc directly there even though ronny told me they would have direct conversion some time ago .. I am pretty confused :(

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
They do not do it that way because bm's design and sells pitch promised them fees from running their own tokens. So it will continue to be like that until THE MARKET shows them that this is unreasonable and people want BTC to bitBTC direct conversion, as it is the only way that makes sense from their point of view.

So in more practical terms the exchanges will either switch to that model and find other ways to make money or will just holding on to the token model making their fees on no volume (aka not making  fees because of tiny volumes )
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.

What kind of comment is this? I suggest you make a more detailed report on why OpenLedger does not solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, and then you ask BM in another thread to answer, because I see no chance to reply.

We are only having extra costs by joining this project, so any talk about reducing the costs you really have to take somewhere else. I dont believe its fair to even start discussing about why a platform does not work when users are still struggling to get on it in the first place, the fiat gateway has not been added yet, the affiliation system not fully active and centralized exchanges still not integrated and holding funds of many users.

My guess is people are stressing because they thought CCEDK would be the frontend and run on top of OpenLedger, which would also have many other exchanges running on top of it with the merged orderbooks. However they currently see CCEDK and OpenLedger as separated entities which are not related. I think a post from you explaining you're in the process of transferring CCEDK to OpenLedger could ease some minds. An example of that would be OPENDOGE:BTS market I think.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.

What kind of comment is this? I suggest you make a more detailed report on why OpenLedger does not solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, and then you ask BM in another thread to answer, because I see no chance to reply.

We are only having extra costs by joining this project, so any talk about reducing the costs you really have to take somewhere else. I dont believe its fair to even start discussing about why a platform does not work when users are still struggling to get on it in the first place, the fiat gateway has not been added yet, the affiliation system not fully active and centralized exchanges still not integrated and holding funds of many users.

OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline seraphim

But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.
Meet you on STEEM

Offline btswolf

But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
+5% +5% +5%

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.

Sorry, maybe I just feel a little stressed ight now with too much work, thanks

We appreciate all your doing for BTS +5% and of course youre really busy!

But I agree with phillyguy, when I read your summer announcement about moving to the blockchain, I was hoping that you wouldnt continue to maintain 2 separate orderbooks. I was hoping that ccedk.com would become a frontend to the blockchain and would show exactly the same orders as whats on the webwallet. This is what BitShares really needs to solve its liquidity problem.

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

I hear you on all points, and they are on the board for further discussion.
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline phillyguy


Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.

Sorry, maybe I just feel a little stressed ight now with too much work, thanks

Understood. Good luck with it all. Thanks.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.

Sorry, maybe I just feel a little stressed ight now with too much work, thanks
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.


Offline phillyguy

Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
I guess this was all bullshit then?

"CCEDK has become the first exchange in the world to make its books completely transparent – using the same public ledger philosophy that made Bitcoin so successful. 'You don’t have to worry about our exchange being hacked or whether it is honest or solvent. Everything about our new accounts will be an open book and you control the keys to your own funds, even while they are on our exchange.'"

https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/16/danish-firm-set-to-revolutionize-cryptocurrency-industry/

Why?

Rome was not built in one day as you know, and this whole process is not done overnight but needs done in steps.

Right now if all users move their funds to OpenLedger from CCEDK, then you have basically what i mentioned in all articles, so it is really up to you and anyone else to decide where you want to trade, which has been the intention with this from the first place.

I think if all look into this being positive about all changes whether quick or slow, then progress happens in fact will happen much faster, and you are yourself an active part of making this happen.

And why complain about a project which have not even gotten off yet? You have still some 400-700 million bts stuck on btc38 and many bts holder still not migrating yet, and you want things to be perfect right off the bat? It is obvious that whatever we do from our side is only a small part in all of this, atleast for the time being and we are okay with this as we belive in growing with the community.

You do have one point though. At the time of that article you refer to, it was still not clear udner which name the decentralized platform was to be presented. With a great amount of comments from the BItshares community commenting and saying CCEDK was not the right name for a platform like this, we came up with the name OpenLedger. For anyone reading the media later on, there is no place where it says Openledger and CCEDK is one and same exchange, but instead we are saying that OpenLeger is what CCEDK would like to be in future or that CCEDK is supporting Openledger in all the ways possible with legal framework for the fiat gateway etc, and time will show if we can manage to move it all to Openledger. For now it is impossible as the NanoCard finally being activated end of coming week will be based on bitcoin and will need CCEDK as the base exchange for that.

The idea will then be in future to add NanoCard to OpenLedger with the support of Smartcoins, again depending on the support from the BitShares community. How do you imagine NanoCard to be added as a useful and valuablæe tool of Openledger is there is no liquidity and market depth provided from its users in the first place? That would be bad business, and we dont plan on oing any bad business, but invest in the future.

Sorry, if I cannot continue here, as I have urgent matters to attend., but from end of this coming weeek we will start creating a hangout for openledger with special focus on how to bring the news out to the rest of the world
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 12:21:51 pm by ccedk »
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline phillyguy

I guess this was all bullshit then?

"CCEDK has become the first exchange in the world to make its books completely transparent – using the same public ledger philosophy that made Bitcoin so successful. 'You don’t have to worry about our exchange being hacked or whether it is honest or solvent. Everything about our new accounts will be an open book and you control the keys to your own funds, even while they are on our exchange.'"

https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/16/danish-firm-set-to-revolutionize-cryptocurrency-industry/
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts

I will also only use it if someone else use it first ::)

Hmm, somehow I feel that is not exactly the way you create market depth, by staying away untill someone else decides to join.

You all have a decentralized platform, and market dept will appear if all start using it, but since many people still have not migrated I think it is far too early to speak about lack of support, and more a question of getting the platform fully filled with all shareholders and interested parties of BitShares.

So, for the ones reluctant to add funds untill others do, dont worry, it will happen eventually, with your help sooner than later though, and who says all your funds need to be in an exchange possible to be goxxed, when you have now one that cannot?  ;) :)

OpenLedger is mant as a platform available for the entire world to use, no matter colour of skin or colour of coin, and I think personally seeing the new things added every day, that we are in for a great product increasing in value every day.

Can you just answer the OP's question?

CCEDK maintaining its own order book off the blockchain is not how you add market depth either!

CCEDK is a centralized exchange and Openledger is a decentralized exchange. A majority of people actively writing on forum have been saying they will only support a decentralized exchange, and now it is here, is that not what everyone in the community has been asking for?

CCEDK is supporting the decentralized exchange OpenLedger with an upcoming fiat gateway as well as supporting crypto markets interested in being traded on Openledger and whether the volume on CCEDK of bts will move onto OpenLedger or not is really not up to me to decide but up to the users with their funds on CCEDK, so I dont really understand the question.

Whether CCEDK will eventually move all activities from the centralized version to the decentralized Openledger is again up to the users on CCEDK and the management of CCEDK, and as long as we feel there is a reason to maintain a centralized exchange like CCEDK, it will exist, and it is clearly not the time to discuss this yet, as Openledger is only in its early phase of showing what it will be able to do in future. It is all a question of the support of users and their liquidity as well as the technology behind the platform deciding the progress of OpenLedger. The team of CCEDK is doing all they can and has no real influence on this, so all we can do with me in the lead is go out there and tell the rest of the world what OpenLedger is all about and then leave the BitShares community decide when they are ready to support the platform themselves.

We are providing the framework for users to start trading on OpenLedger and adding lucrative ways of making it worthwhile as well. Staying away from the platform keeping your funds on Poloniex thinking that this will be the way you increase value of Bitshares defies the reason of having a decentralized exchange in the first place.

CCEDK is not the one supposed to provided liquidity on OpenLedger, lets just be clear on that, and it has never been the intention nor has it been the idea of all. This is a platform where all users are in control of their own keys and as such it should give all an incentive to get the funds into the wallet the sooner the better.



OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline phillyguy


I will also only use it if someone else use it first ::)

Hmm, somehow I feel that is not exactly the way you create market depth, by staying away untill someone else decides to join.

You all have a decentralized platform, and market dept will appear if all start using it, but since many people still have not migrated I think it is far too early to speak about lack of support, and more a question of getting the platform fully filled with all shareholders and interested parties of BitShares.

So, for the ones reluctant to add funds untill others do, dont worry, it will happen eventually, with your help sooner than later though, and who says all your funds need to be in an exchange possible to be goxxed, when you have now one that cannot?  ;) :)

OpenLedger is mant as a platform available for the entire world to use, no matter colour of skin or colour of coin, and I think personally seeing the new things added every day, that we are in for a great product increasing in value every day.

Can you just answer the OP's question?

CCEDK maintaining its own order book off the blockchain is not how you add market depth either!
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Hmm, somehow I feel that is not exactly the way you create market depth, by staying away untill someone else decides to join.

True, but we already have lots of depth on the ccedk website. My original question was could we just merge the 2 orderbooks, so that we can combine our liquidity? Users of ccedk.com could automatically be using the blockchain without even knowing.

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
I will also only use it if someone else use it first ::)

Hmm, somehow I feel that is not exactly the way you create market depth, by staying away untill someone else decides to join.

You all have a decentralized platform, and market dept will appear if all start using it, but since many people still have not migrated I think it is far too early to speak about lack of support, and more a question of getting the platform fully filled with all shareholders and interested parties of BitShares.

So, for the ones reluctant to add funds untill others do, dont worry, it will happen eventually, with your help sooner than later though, and who says all your funds need to be in an exchange possible to be goxxed, when you have now one that cannot?  ;) :)

OpenLedger is mant as a platform available for the entire world to use, no matter colour of skin or colour of coin, and I think personally seeing the new things added every day, that we are in for a great product increasing in value every day.
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline lzr1900

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
i don't want to use an exchange without any market deep.

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
i will use it too, if it has good market deep and can withdraw\deposit in the DEX.
Now i use poloniex, mainly because i have an account there and it has good market deep. CCEDK do not have any of that for me.

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
According to this:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

CCEDK now has 10% of all BTS trade volume. This must be from their own orderbook on their site:
https://www.ccedk.com/bts-btc

Are they going to move their ccedk.com orderbook over to the blockchain? Biggest problem right now is that all of the different BTC/BTS blockchain markets have poor liquidity. They are all useless right now.

I dont have an account on CCEDK. I do however have a blockchain account and I would use OPENBTC:BTS if other people would first.