Quote from: maqifrnswa on January 30, 2016, 10:04:33 pm

I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range.

If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product imo.

Nubits cost you less than a few percent to buy and sell, UpholdUSD too I assume, so if you have a short holding period the risk of either of those failing isn't enough to justify paying a much larger spread for BitUSD.

We either need to incentivize the shorts to come closer during these market conditions/adjust the collateral requirements/other.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 29, 2016, 12:15:55 am

For simplicity once the order is placed on the books at +10% maybe it should be left there. Trying to adjust it adds un needed complexity.
even if the order isn't executed for months it will still be good for the system as it adds depth.

Simple is best. Perhaps the committee should collect and sell the fees on the first day of every month and leave them there.
This would make it simple for the rest of us to quickly audit what has happened.

I like that idea .. put it there and let it stay there ..

Also, I think we shouldn't put a simple 'wall' but 5-10 orders spread over - +10%
Not a fan of walls since they result in slippage (even though BTS is not a trader, it should still act rational)

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 30, 2016, 06:41:29 pm

Quote from: Bhuz on January 30, 2016, 06:33:32 pm

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 30, 2016, 06:13:16 pm

Smartcoin trade/transfer fees are paid to prevent spam and earn income for the reserve pool.
If the user doesn't have BTS the fee pool allows this fee to be made in smartcoin for conveinience.
If this system is only for user convenience then any smartcoin fees collected surely need to go to the reserve pool which is where BTS fees always go?

As far as I understand the only reason for these fees is to allow a trade/transfer  to pay in the trade fee if they don't have bts available.

I think you got the point.

I would say:
"If the user doesn't have BTS, the fee pool allows that user to pay the fee with the market's asset for conveinience."
and
"As far as I understand the only reason for the pool is to allow a trade/transfer to be paid in the relative asset token if the user doesn't have bts available."

So why should these collected fees we are discussing go anywhere else than back to the reserve pool once sold for bts?

Well, the first step is to actually sold them!

After that, yes, refill the pool is probably the more rational thing to do

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 30, 2016, 06:13:16 pm

Smartcoin trade/transfer fees are paid to prevent spam and earn income for the reserve pool.
If the user doesn't have BTS the fee pool allows this fee to be made in smartcoin for conveinience.
If this system is only for user convenience then any smartcoin fees collected surely need to go to the reserve pool which is where BTS fees always go?

As far as I understand the only reason for these fees is to allow a trade/transfer  to pay in the trade fee if they don't have bts available.

I think you got the point.

I would say:
"If the user doesn't have BTS, the fee pool allows that user to pay the fee with the market's asset for conveinience."
and
"As far as I understand the only reason for the pool is to allow a trade/transfer to be paid in the relative asset token if the user doesn't have bts available."

I think this is wrong question. I suggesting looking at how nuBits handles their liquidity provision and emulating them as closely as possible.