301
General Discussion / Re: Liquidity has a Price -> Adding Maker / Taker
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:03:46 am »
So, has this reached a consensus? Are we going to see negative maker fees in the future?
Show Posts
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.
302
General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 03, 2015, 11:59:29 pm »I'm thinking give the incentive only to the short-seller-maker to reduce the premium and compensate for the added risk inherent with the short side in bitshares.Clever idea, but how do you identify whether a maker is also a short seller? Any short position may be unrelated to a given trade.
303
General Discussion / Re: Obit (s) for Bitshares ...when the name says it all
« on: December 03, 2015, 10:17:33 pm »I wait for Ander to start shit-posting on the forum; this is a clear buy signal.How interesting. Ander is my contrarian signal as well.
When Ander starts making happy rah-rah post on the forum, it's time to bail baby!
Wait... what if Ander used himself as a contrarian signal? *mind blown*
304
General Discussion / Re: http://richlist.btsgame.org/ updated daily,Top1000 richest address of asset...
« on: December 03, 2015, 09:37:08 pm »
This richlist is nice. One point of feedback: it does not consider BTS that is locked up as Bitasset collateral as part of the BTS balance. Is there a richlist that correctly interprets collateral positions?
Thanks!
Thanks!
305
General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 03, 2015, 06:16:04 pm »
Option 1 is a negative maker fee. It seems it has some community support.
Now we need specifics. How about 0.2% rebate for makers, and 0.2% fee for takers? Do you think that's too little, or too much? It makes sense to me that the maker rebate would be exactly counterbalanced by an equivalently-sized taker fee, in order to prevent abuse via self-trades.
Now we need specifics. How about 0.2% rebate for makers, and 0.2% fee for takers? Do you think that's too little, or too much? It makes sense to me that the maker rebate would be exactly counterbalanced by an equivalently-sized taker fee, in order to prevent abuse via self-trades.
306
General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 03, 2015, 03:29:53 am »I think we should support percentage based trade fee and split it to maker% and taker% which can be set by committee. maker%+taker% >= 0. You can set maker% = -0.05% and taker% = 0.1%. This way maker can share fee with the network.This is a simpler way to do the same thing.
- NEGATIVE_MAKER_FEE = cash in the pocket of makers
- MAKER_SHARES = more complexity and rules to accomplish the same result
I also think that liquidity would be helped by allowing orders to be placed relative to the price feed.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm saying that MAKER_SHARES aren't needed because a negative maker fee solves the same problem much more simply.
307
General Discussion / Re: Price of BitShares on Dec 25th?
« on: December 01, 2015, 04:05:05 am »
I'm going to guess 609 satoshis. I know it's low, but at least it is the same number for people reading it upside down. That's a benefit.
308
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 27, 2015, 08:00:56 pm »-You buy $45k of BTS off the marketYes, it makes sense to me a worker role would be somehow involved in the solution here. It was designed for this purpose (funding new work).
-You get paid back by a worker proposal that pays you back over a few months
Result is that your added buy pressure helps fund CNX via their worker positions.
EDIT: did you miss a "step 1b: burn BTS" or does the investor keep the bought BTS? I want to receive a worker role for buying BTS, haha.
309
General Discussion / Re: Using Bitcoin as Collateral
« on: November 27, 2015, 07:49:00 pm »I know longer think that the current market mechanics will lead to a stable peg between BitBTC and BTC.Do you think the current market mechanics will lead to a stable peg between BitUSD and USD?
What if... BTS was actually bitcoin, and to create "bitshares tokens" you transferred them from the bitcoin blockchain through a two-way peg?
310
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 27, 2015, 07:21:57 pm »1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45kI'm not sure the "may" would hold up. If BM refused to distribute any fees, a court may enforce it because the implied expectation was materially relied upon.
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
311
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 27, 2015, 05:29:44 pm »
This is a proposal to put stealth transfers in the Graphene wallet. What about Moonstone and alternative wallets?
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
312
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:42:49 pm »If the following were told to me:I actually don't think this explanation is likely over the medium or long term. As nice as it is to think that extended downturns are "manipulation" by a select few, it's more reasonable to think that there is simply a lower aggregate demand for BTS, relative to supply, than there was in the past.
- Crazy manipulation by (an organized gang of?) traders on Poloniex is leaching value from BitShares, hurting the whole project
Basically, markets gonna market. If the project is a success, the price will follow.
313
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:33:14 pm »Just to be clear, I have never considered trading for profit because everything I have seen is a "gamble" and not a sure bet.I think we all got a little overexcited from your questions. No worries.
314
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:26:47 pm »
One more thing: it makes my eyebrows go up when everyone encourages each other to buy BTS with borrowed money. That is not investing -- it's gambling. Slow and steady wins the race.
Sorry for our loss
Sorry for our loss
315
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:23:50 pm »
Bytemaster, good questions. I think there is no free lunch here. Any strategy can backfire.
As outsiders, we don't see the individual margin short and long positions inside Poloniex, so it's easy to make the wrong trade. The closest we can come is what is transparent on the blockchain. For example, here's a user with 40+ million BTS that (so far) appears to be selling in sizable chunks. https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/trust/overview
To be honest, it concerns me that the BTS lead dev is considering trading for profit. Active trading takes practice, is risky, and is basically a profession in and of itself. The best analogy I can think of right now is that of a poker game: pros make money, but most people lose. It's wise to leave such activity to the pros (and speculators).
As outsiders, we don't see the individual margin short and long positions inside Poloniex, so it's easy to make the wrong trade. The closest we can come is what is transparent on the blockchain. For example, here's a user with 40+ million BTS that (so far) appears to be selling in sizable chunks. https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/trust/overview
To be honest, it concerns me that the BTS lead dev is considering trading for profit. Active trading takes practice, is risky, and is basically a profession in and of itself. The best analogy I can think of right now is that of a poker game: pros make money, but most people lose. It's wise to leave such activity to the pros (and speculators).
