121
General Discussion / Re: Interest for a Live Coding Session for the Python Libraries?
« on: March 08, 2016, 07:38:31 pm »
awesome, thank you so much for doing this and posting on YouTube!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Who said its dropped?the blockchain says so ..
i tend to agree that a solid product is attractive to new users on its own, but i'd still consider experimenting with some marketing ideas. i also agree that for anyone who cares enough about Bitshares to be reading this forum, we ought to have some personal responsibility in getting the message out ourselves. i personally make it a point to use my twitter account to support the community and i have talked to plenty of friends and colleagues urging them to give it a try.
@cylonmaker2053 You are a perfect candidate to be a Meetup group host. Meetups are the best way to introduce new people to Bitshares and everything the platform has to offer. We have a mobile wallet now too and in a couple weeks we will have the first couple POS systems ready for launch as well so right now is the perfect time to setup a meetup at your local coffee shop, bar or whatever. It's friendly, social people like you who are our greatest asset! Check this out, it is very easy:
http://bitshares.meetup.com
Also, to receive yield, perhaps it should be required to lock up funds for a month at a time. So yield would be paid every month starting 1 month after lock-up (on an account by account basis), and early withdrawal means yield is forfeited.
I personally like this idea more & could be in favour of it. This would make the advertisable variable yield higher. In terms of liquidity, you want to increase Makers at key times but also reduce liquidity takers at those key times. This may incentivise those who would probably be liquidity takers to not suck liquidity out of the market as much at key times. (Buying BitUSD when BTC/BTS is rapidly falling & selling BitUSD when BTC/BTS is rapidly rising) So besides all the other benefits of yield, this would be a way of using yield to improve liquidity imo.
Edit: At the same time once we have merchants accepting BitUSD this might be a negative in terms of getting the good liquidity in terms of people easily spending their BitUSD & creating the Pool to customer to merchant back to pool liquidity cycle.
Why not set up
- BitSharesNews
- BitSharesUpdate
- BitSharesOfficial
I am holding @bitsharesmunich and tweet every day. I am almost alone :/ Get LOUD people
@JonnyBitcoin has contact to that guys who is willing to sell the twitter and facebook handle for ~$3k .. There was a forum thread about it as well
I assume the algorithm can take into account a 4th factor - buy/sell order imbalances - to reward market makers more for placing orders on the weak side of the book. So 4 factors now include:
1. order size
2. time on book
3. proximity to best bid/ask
4. strong/weak side of book
Thoughts about coding this @abit, @xeroc?
I'm all for really seeing how it works out. But I would hate to overpay with more yield than is necessary to incentivize the behavior we seek. Also, let's assume we do 10% and it works great. Do you think that would be sustainable going forward? Do you not think 5% would do the trick?
Also, I'm sure we won't get the full desired results (or support for this to begin with) without liquidity measures done in conjunction. So the question is, how much will the liquidity incentives cost and will we be able to add that to the tab? And let's not forget that there will also be some dev costs.
I think marketing should be done by each one of us or as a community effort. No need for worker funds, it has already been proven it doesnt work, funds go to waste and we are not yet at a level where its worthy to use big funds for that since we still need to improve a lot of stuff.
Marketing will be done by each service using BitShares, the question is finding those services, not how to advertise BTS. If we have a good product, people will surely come, maybe it will take more time but they will. We should focus on that,
i would suggest paying these kickbacks on a sliding scale based on length of time on the order books so if someone had a real safe hedge on the books for months that saved us from having a black swan event then he would deserve more than someone who put an order up for 10 min then sold to himself
i like a sliding scale concept, but actually think it should work in the reverse. open orders deep in the order book don't add real liquidity IMO, the action happens on the margin and closing the bid-ask spread is key. if there's going to be any subsidy for liquidity, it would best be spent narrowing spreads. that said, i'm more a fan of fee discounts than kickbacks; rewarding higher frequency trading and/or open orders near the highest bid and lowest ask.
I'm not sure I agree with any rewards based on filled orders (HFT or otherwise) since that's where there's an incentive to do self-trading. Whereas if we reward based only on placing orders on the books, then there's no incentive to self-trade, only to provide liquidity.
Beyond that, I agree with larger rewards for open orders closer to best bid and ask. So we can factor in size of orders placed, time on order book, and proximity to best bid/ask. We should probably also factor in balance between buy side and sell side, although I imagine at any given time we can skew this more toward either the buy side or the sell side depending on market direction.