I disagree with some answers

Q) Why is there a problem implementing pegged assets?

A) The primary answer is that there can be no redeemability to the real asset on chain, for obvious reasons (since fiat/gold/silver/oil are not digital in the first place).

Yes, that is the challenge

Q) Why is bitshare's current solution inadequate?

A) Those who borrow bitUSD from the system are at much higher risk than those who buy it from the market because the borrower must actively maintain his collateral and can get margin called by the system if the feed price moves enough

What you are describing is actually fine and not an inadequacy. The problem, as I see it, is the lack of symmetry in the arbitrage opportunities. The blockchain provides an arbitrage opportunity in the case of an oversupply of bitUSD (forced settlement), and rewards the trader that pushes the market closer to peg while reducing oversupply. There is no opposite action. The equivalent would be the blockchain offering all collected fees for sale at settlement +10% or something like that so more bitUSD are automatically put in to circulation when there is an under-supply. A long knows they can always sell at the feed, but shorts have no such assurance as to at what price they can buy.

Q) What effect does this have on the price?

A) The borrower is forced to price his risk into the sale price of the bitUSD he borrows from the system - this leads to a situation where the price of bitUSD will always trade at a premium compared to the feed price, this damages the viability of the product as a whole.

This is fine, it is designed to be at a premium. The problem is that it is impossible to price this premium since there is no way of predicting what the premium will be in the future since there is no explicit reason (no arbitrage opportunity) for shorting.

It's helpful to think about what the "price" of a smartcoin should be. The price occurs at the balance point where longs are no longer willing to pay for over-valued smartcoins and when shorts are no longer willing to accept more risk. Since the shorter assumes both "normal" risk (variance in BTS:fiat markets) and a new network risk (will the premium for smartcoins improve or worsen in the future?), the short's risk is very difficult to quantify. Having an network backstop will  help shorters to quantify risk, and thus keep the price of a smartcoin closer to peg.

Q) Is there another design which doesn't have the same biased risk profile, or is this just a natural consequence of not having redeemability?

A) Discuss

Bias risk profile is fine to have. The problem is when there is no equilibrium in risk. Since there are no arbitrage opportunities for shorters, equilibrium is difficult to quantify or obtain. If fiat:bitFIAT on/off ramps exist, that would enable arbitrage, or if the blockchain provided a backstop (automatically shorting at settlement +10%), that would help too.

How to provide liquidity in bridge markets

• Borrow BitBTC with BTS
• Sell BitBTC at 1.005
• Buy BitBTC back at 0.995
• Repay loan
• Net 1% profit

Executing this simple algorithm allows individuals that are long BTS to generate a profit of 1% while still remaining long BTS. I would like to encourage anyone, who would like to help Bitshares liquidity problem, to Borrow BTC and begin selling it at less than a 1% spread on one of these bridge markets.

I don't think this is a good idea, people who do this will get ripped off by creating an arbitrage opportunity for other traders. The good thing is that it should help peg the internal markets; the bad thing is that these market makers will be the ones paying the expense. Here's the arbitrage:

I start with 1 real BTC. I use openledger and trade for 1 openbtc (minus small fee). I trade my 1 openbtc for .99 bitBTC (because of the proposed openbtc:BTC market makers). 1 bitBTC is sold for 1.10 times the value of 1 BTC in the BTS:bitBTC market. I sell my .99 bitBTC for 1.089 bitBTC worth of BTS on the DEX. I then take my 1.089 bitBTC worth of BTS to openledger and trade it to BTC.

I start with 1 BTC, I end with 1.089 BTC.
The BTC:BTS market moved closer to peg.
The market maker is now short .99 BTC (and the value of BTC dropped).
No one will sell me openbtc when they can go to openledger and get a better deal, so the market maker will go short forever until the market makers run out of funds or until the spread between settlement and bitBTC < 1%.

I posted recently, maybe bitshares UIAs should be the main mechanism for trading... In that case, market making the trade.btc:openbtc markets is more important.

An alternative idea would be to mirror the bts:btc market in the openbtc:btc market with some profit. That requires bots (and to properly map bts to openbtc), but why would someone trade that way when they could directly go openbtc:bts:btc on their own without paying a premium?

I think this is a good idea, and having one person dedicated on managing releases/bug triage is important and helpful. Especially as a connection between the community, bug reports, and devs.

1) graphene-ui is a CNX project that is licensed to bitshares. Bitshares will be paying you to manage graphene. Is CNX ok with a non-employee managing their releases?
2) Will you have commit access/tag access to the offical repos?
3) The role appears to be mostly community organizing, bug triage, illustration of goals (all very important for a successful project). In the end these are just "suggestions" (although probably very good ones) of priorities. Are you the one that will say "we won't release until X Y Z are fixed?" or is it more helping articulate highest priorities from the input from the community?

has enough votes as of now
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.17

the "Promise" error you saw was from a too-old node version. See:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/488

I suspect the same for the most recent errors. Try 4.2.2 (the most recent stable), or even 5.0.

Quote from: clayop on November 12, 2015, 06:26:14 pm

Quote from: clout on November 12, 2015, 06:24:07 pm

Quote from: clayop on November 12, 2015, 06:21:10 pm

I recommend @mindphlux and @Xeldal for market making bots.

Are you saying that they could contribute capital, software or both?

I meant software. They're making MM bots now IIRC.

The list is strangely missing @maqifrnswa ...the only one actually having a bot...even without the API.

my bot does require a hacked wallet. I've pushed the changes to graphene, so everyone will get them eventually. The bot isn't that great, but I'd be happy to share the code with @mindphlux and @Xeldal, or any other trusted community member that has a history of working with bots. It could be a good starting point. (My bot code is crap as I just hacked on it to get what I want, but can easily be messaged into something better).

I'd eventually open source my code, once the wallet api supports it and it isn't embarrassing to look at.

Does this graph reflect the funds held in the following places:

1. Fee Pools
2. Cash Back VBO of committee account?

mine doesn't, it's just what the budget object says is in the reserve fund at that time stamp

tested using my own web node using a browser:

file://filelocation/index.html?r=maqifrnswa

worked in firefox. openledger-reg (faucet) was registrar, i was referrer

hmm,  it might not work anymore 2.0.151105