Author Topic: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!  (Read 49646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore. It is useless. It is either a very bad idea or an idea that is just too early for BTS to grasp and realize...  Assuming it is the former I have no desire my effort to improve BTS to be largely viewed as some form of attack on BTS.

It is not a bad idea however it may be too early for BTS.  Any traders short term currently using a 3rd party exchange will not want to only trade bts vs FiAT or precious metals.  They want to trade crypto.  Until there are price feeds and markets for crypto derivatives the traders will simply pull off the BitUSD etc... and put it through a gateway such as CCEDK.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?  Should we be adding additional markets enough though the volume will not be there short term?

Offline Tuck Fheman

Lucksacks.com - The Largest Cryptocurrency Freeroll Poker Site in the World!

Offline mint chocolate chip

Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore. It is useless. It is either a very bad idea or an idea that is just too early for BTS to grasp and realize...  Assuming it is the former I have no desire my effort to improve BTS to be largely viewed as some form of attack on BTS.
Your idea is not bad, but maybe you underestimated how challenging it is to get others to do the development and fork of a new chain/network.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore. It is useless. It is either a very bad idea or an idea that is just too early for BTS to grasp and realize...  Assuming it is the former I have no desire my effort to improve BTS to be largely viewed as some form of attack on BTS.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
@abit Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so. :)

Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.

Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.

I do not know what we are talking about here? It was posted by BM as the first ever response in this thread. And yes this is the detail explanation on how it works (sorry thought it is obvious)

And I did respond to your particular reiteration coinhorder. Yes it is possible and yes I do find it unlikely, but if an exchange put the effort to expose the dex as a prerequisite to deposit a coin (BTS) into their centralized exchange? Wonderful! Thanks for the support and effort put into it. [the fact still remains it will not be the real BTS but a derivative... fact even more clearly shown to the user while the use is seen/learning the dex as a necessary step to deposit. Nice for BTS]
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so. :)


I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?

* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1

So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall

* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange

Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.

Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.

Not sure I really understand the point of this.  Please explain.  Thanks.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?

I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.

I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.

Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.

And then what??  It is clear to me that we need to FIRST make it attractive for people to KEEP their shares on the DEX.  Plenty of good ideas have already been bandied about.  Such as only earning coin days (i.e. "free" transactions) if you keep your BTS on the DEX. 

Yah earning free transactions is genius. That will make people pull off their BTS from polo so quick... oh wait they can probably get more return just lending BTS out.

No, but obviously a series of incentives in combination (and that includes the DEX simply becoming more useful, with features such as bond market, etc.) will cause a growing number of people to keep their funds and trade on the DEX instead of on centralized exchanges.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
@abit Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so. :)

Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.

Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 07:03:57 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4632
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Maybe just disable all co-op markets except the bitUSD one?
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline monsterer

I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?

* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1

So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall

* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange

Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4632
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?

* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1

So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall

* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange

So balance of btc38-d-w-account is actually how many shares are trading on BTC38's central exchange

With this way, co-op can still be traded on external exchanges. And, the exchange can also vote with the co-ops. The steps are a bit more complex than current one, but looks like practicable. The exchange has no risk, users of the exchange bear all the risks.

I think a percentage-based order-filling fee on co-ops (to the network) would be a real barrier for this behavior, however the exchange can always transfer this cost to the customers.

Thoughts?
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?

I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.

I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.

Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.

And then what??  It is clear to me that we need to FIRST make it attractive for people to KEEP their shares on the DEX.  Plenty of good ideas have already been bandied about.  Such as only earning coin days (i.e. "free" transactions) if you keep your BTS on the DEX. 

Yah earning free transactions is genius. That will make people pull off their BTS from polo so quick... oh wait they can probably get more return just lending BTS out.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?

I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.

I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.

Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.

And then what??  It is clear to me that we need to FIRST make it attractive for people to KEEP their shares on the DEX.  Plenty of good ideas have already been bandied about.  Such as only earning coin days (i.e. "free" transactions) if you keep your BTS on the DEX.  Earning yield and/or dividends (@Empirical1.2 has a proposal right now that includes yield).  We should be offering new coins such as Decred and soon Lisk (hopefully @zeroc can help make that happen).  Better organization of the DEX markets (which @svk is working on) should help too.  We should also start incentivizing liquidity ASAP.   Let's see what kind of traction these measures gain us.  As more and more people start using the DEX and start holding and transferring BitAssets, let's start increasing the cost of transferring BTS.  We have to do this is in a smart, sustainable way.  We don't need to use tony's caveman way of doing things.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?

I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.

I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.

Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Raising the cost of transferring BTS is just a small part of it.  The main thing is positively incentivizing the use of the DEX.  @hadrian listed some incentives above.  @Empirical1.2 has been talking about yield harvesting.  Adding liquidity and otherwise making the DEX more useful will all make it increasingly attractive to keep your BTS on the DEX.