I fully support this worker proposal, it's highly productive and allows for community oriented bounty claims.

@kimchi-king - I don't get how you can claim this is misspent money nor how you've failed to noticed any of the changes that this worker has brought to the reference wallet implementation. I've easily had 10+ of my own issues addressed and resolved via the bitshares-ui repo/worker in the last year, plus the UI has undergone large changes (see tradingview charts, ant design, increased responsiveness/efficiency, new modal pop-up modules, etc).

---

If I were to provide one suggestion for improvement, it'd be that bug reporters aught to get a very small % of issue bounty reward, for bringing an issue to the table that was worthy of implementation. It'd attract functional testers and encourage more users to report their annoyances with the UI if they knew they'd get a couple bucks for their time writing up the issue.

RE design audit:

List with all main indicators
Main tools for drawing on chart
Chart view setting (colors, sizes)

Already implemented recently using tradingview, please tick these for the Bitshares column.

Landing page

I believe another team has full control of this and plans to implement a new design - out of scope for this worker proposal, IMO.

Exchange:
The trading layout is hard to customize and fails to take into account traders’ personal preferences
The variety of drawing tools on the chart is insufficient for advanced users and on the whole not visible enough.
The number of indicators is too limited for experienced users.
Chart settings are not clearly visible or easy to find.

False - tradingview changed the above weeks ago.

There is no indication of progress during the transfer of funds to the exchange

This would be the responsibility of the gateway service, unless it was some sort of atomic cross chain transfer.

Should we require asset owner permission to use said asset as backing collateral for an MPA?

Recently, issue #1537 in the bitshares-ui Github repo highlighted the fact that despite the UI and documentation indicating that UIA cannot be used to back an MPA on the BTS DEX, the reality actually is that UIA are an allowed backing collateral asset type in the core code.

This BSIP is not arguing for/against UIA being used as an MPA's backing collateral, because this is already enforced by core (Abit has a testnet asset configured as such).

The purpose of this BSIP discussion is to decide whether or not you should require owner permissions/approval of the asset being assigned as backing collateral for a new MPA.

---

Why I think we should require permission

• Any assets locked away as MPA backing collateral cannot be reclaimed/recalled by the UIA owner (even by force). This has the consequence of being unable to reduce the supply to 0, potentially preventing asset settings from being changed or the asset from being fully shutdown.
• By 'wrapping' an UIA in an MPA 'container' the MPA owner can effectively impose new asset settings over the existing UIA flags/permissions/settings to the potential detriment of the UIA owner.

Why perhaps we shouldn't require such permissions

• An asset owner may refuse (or be unable to) provide permission to use the asset as backing collateral, requiring an alternative asset for backing collateral.
• The committee may be overwhelmed with requests to use committee owned assets as backing collateral, though that's subjective.
• The committee would have a greater centralized control of backing collateral selection on the BTS DEX, however that could result in more private MPAs being created. The committee size could be increased too to offset risk.
• Existing MPA with non-BTS backing collateral may make implementing such a permission requirement too complex? Perhaps existing MPA could be exempt?
• What if the asset owner removed their approval at a later date? It'd have to be permanent approval unless supply was 0.
• What happens if you have owner permissions of the backing asset & MPA, then transferred the backing asset ownership to another account?
• Being able to avoid market fees and replace restrictive permission flags with an MPA is pretty cool.

Exclusions: The Bitshares core token (BTS) should be excluded, as nobody has ownership permissions over it.

Github link: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/80

---

What are your thoughts?

Can you think of any reasons for/against requiring permission to use an asset as backing collateral for an MPA?

So what, is this an UIA/MPA issued on the BTS DEX, or a new graphene chain? If the later, any sharedrop planned?

I am going to push two proposals:

1\ Set up a bounty in the whole community, to improve the API capability of a single node. The best improvement win the prize,and the code can be merged into the mainnet.

2\ Improve the voting system by adding decay factor for voting. For example, the votes will expire unless updating their votes every month/year...

Anyway, the above is just simple thought, more details will be added gradually, and welcome any kind of discussion.

1 not covered already by the bitshares-core worker?

2 related to the following BSIP? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitshares/bsips/master/bsip-0022.md

Did you mean adding EUVIX or JYVIX as smart assets or calculate volatility indexes of bitCNY and bitUSD with respect to BTS? By the way is there a general crypto index (like averaged DJI, but for top 20 coins) and corresponding crypto-volatility index?

I meant bitCNY & bitUSD, however VIX would be an interesting smartcoin too given that you can't directly buy/trade VIX tokens in the fiat market (AFAIK). That said, it broke in february, didn't it? http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/bitcoin-stock-volatility-vix-sec/

bit20 is a relevant index: http://www.bittwenty.com/

Googling found the following information on crypto volatility indexes: (no endorsement)
https://www.sifrdata.com/cryptocurrency-volatility-index/
https://medium.com/@cryxio/cryx-cryptocurrency-volatility-index-cvx-bcb5324ac0ac

Neat idea, created a couple quick graphs above to explore the price impact.

What do you think about volatility indexes for the most popular smart assets?