Fee Flow / Yield Info Graphic

[oldman]

Presentation is excellent, very clean aesthetic.

Unfortunately I had trouble figuring out the message being conveyed.

I think the point is to show the relationship between revenues and distributions.

It looks like revenues are being directed down and left while distributions are moving up and right. This is a bit confusing... where are they going? And why opposite directions?

I would suggest:

- Revenues depicted as moving in to the "Accumulated Fees/Reserve Fund" containers

- Distributions depicted as moving out of the "Accumulated Fees/Reserve Fund" and in to the pockets of happy, shiny share/asset holders

- Rotating the stacks 90 degrees and layering horizontally: BTSX -> Revenues -> Accumulated Fees -> Shareholders

- 1st layer BTSX, 2nd layer bitUSD, 3rd layer UIA

- Remove the asterisk on the pegged assets. Not necessary to provide that information for this type of info graphic

Not that I'm picky or anything. 
 

[xeroc]

... much nicer and cleaner ...

[cass]

[xeroc]

Selling BTSX, Shorting BitUSD, and Canceling the same orders result in BTSX transaction fee.

I would call the BTSX fund "Accumulated Fees"  and show it going 2 places... delegates and burn.

fixed

[bytemaster]

I updated it .. once again .. is the content still accurate?

Selling BTSX, Shorting BitUSD, and Canceling the same orders result in BTSX transaction fee.

I would call the BTSX fund "Accumulated Fees"  and show it going 2 places... delegates and burn.

[xeroc]

I updated it .. once again .. is the content still accurate?

[xeroc]

- Dividends Fund
- Reserve Fund

pick one! I cannot decide :-)

[James212]

Should we start calling the "rainy day fund" the "rewards fund"?

*confirmed*
"rainy day fund" sucks ..

but I am unaware of a community consensus about the new name

Rewards Fund is good.

I'd prefer "Dividends Fund" ..... to me "Rewards" gives the connotation of a cheep marketing trick (used by many credit cards) as opposed to benefits generated from solid business results. 
(( though I would still vote for calling the receiving side of the dividends, "Interest".  It is much better for marketing. ))

[xeroc]

gonna work more on this the evening!

[CLains]

Great work xeroc! 

agree that the text gets a little small in some places.

[Shentist]

would be nice if the graphic would be bigger. Maybe my eyesight is going bad, but it is not readable.

[eagleeye]

*agreed*

Gonna update the infographics zo account for reserves tomorrows

Good effort xeroc but I think only us users are going to understand that infographic as it is right now.

Maybe put some titles or text other than a flow chart.

[xeroc]

*agreed*

Gonna update the infographics zo account for reserves tomorrows

[oldman]

Should we start calling the "rainy day fund" the "rewards fund"?

Reserve fund.

I agree. I would also like to bring up an earlier point regarding the supposed lack of a need for an insurance fund. I don't think the yields replace the need for an insurance fund. If a black swan event occurs and the BitUSD issued is partially collateralized by the BTSX held as collateral in the short position, this might hurt the peg. As the BitUSD that was collected for yield is instead destroyed until BitUSD is fully backed, the peg should return to normal. However, that may take some time. On the other hand if there was enough BitUSD held in the reserve fund, the necessary amount of BitUSD could be immediately destroyed to give BitUSD holders immediate confidence that their BitUSD is fully backed. They do not have to assume the network will be able to collect BitUSD in the future to balance things; they will know it immediately.

In fact can't there be a possibility in which the network will not be able to collect enough BitUSD to again fully back the remaining BitUSD with the BTSX held in collateral? If everyone tries to convert their BitUSD into BTSX, couldn't it be possible that some slow movers will have BitUSD without any short position to back it. In such a scenario, the network was too eager in providing BitUSD holders high yields. All the quick movers were able to cash out their BitUSD with high yields into BTSX. The slow movers got stuck with worthless BitUSD.

I think there should be a minimum limit on the BitAsset reserve fund. This minimum limit should be proportional to the amount of the BitAsset issued. If the reserve fund is below the minimum limit, the BitAssets collected as fees should first be used to fill up the fund to above the limit. As the fund grows well above the limit, the network should determine an appropriate yield rate to pay to the issued BitUSD that will not reduce the fund levels below the minimum limit. It should also consider the history of incoming fees in order to pick a yield rate that is fairly consistent (not too volatile) but still high enough to not grow the reserve fund without bound. If a black swan event occurs, the network should immediately destroy as much of the BitAssets in the reserve as necessary and possible to make the BitAssets fully backed.

This merits consideration by the devs.

The reserve fund will average the fees collected by the network over 1 year because it takes 1 year to pay them out.   Thus the reserve fund will continue to grow and be available to handle issues.

It would be advantageous to make reserve ratios and related information prominent or at least easily accessible in the UI.

Reserves will play an increasingly important role as adoption accelerates - the marketing folks should leverage the heck out of this feature.

A decentralized bank/exchange with transparent/provable/hard-coded reserves is the holy grail of crypto finance.

[Riverhead]

Very nice!


The default fee is now 0.5 BTSX for transactions. Should it be updated in the Infographic?

the tx fees in btsx are denoted with "tx fees" (upper block)
the fees in bitAsset (not yet implemented in the software) are just arbitrary numbers .. ie 0.1 bitUSD

Gotcha, my bad.