0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Was there a BSIP submitted for this proposal on github?a) worker requests payment with bitUSD (keeping it simple is good)b) reserve fund of BTS is used in entirety as collateral to create amount of bitUSD necessary for payouts (no fixed ratio)c) fees set in bitUSD to pay off debt, also payable in BTS rate determined through price feed conversion that add to reserve fund collateral (no market use necessary)if forced settling occurs for any reason, you still have BTS so nothing changes, keep borrowing to create only what's necessarydone
Quote from: yvv on April 12, 2017, 02:08:59 pmThere are no inherent obstacles in bts which prevent to offer 100-300x leverage. Markets are just too shallow for this at the moment. To do that though, wouldn't the committee need to drop the MCR and sqpr well below 1? That greatly increases the risk to the bitasset holder. It basically puts the bitasset holder in the position of the broker.
There are no inherent obstacles in bts which prevent to offer 100-300x leverage. Markets are just too shallow for this at the moment.
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 12, 2017, 01:54:49 pmQuote from: yvv on April 12, 2017, 01:17:30 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on April 12, 2017, 12:56:07 pmQuote from: logart on April 12, 2017, 05:34:19 amIf any DEV seeing this, please we need this feature, If we want mass adoption in our DEX we need to have enough liquidity for all stable fiat assets, we will never see mass adoption if we rely only on users to create BITusd or BitCNY . In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD. That way there will be liquidity distributed among all the Bit-assets too, we want liquidity in BitGold, BitSilver, BitEUR, BitUSD, bitCNY, Bitbtc. Witnesses and workers should like the idea too because they are incentivized in diversified assets and they know that diversification is the best and recommended way to store the value of money. And if in the future the more bit-assets are added to DEX like BitCHF or BitMXN, etc the more diversification they will get Bitshares is really appealing for traders but traders search two main things when choosing a broker liquidity and leverage. Leverage is also important for traders in Forex because Forex currencies only move less than a cent sometimes so there's logically the need of leverage to make a profit. 100-500X leverage is needed in forex. 3-10X is only needed in cryptos because they are far more volatile.While I agree that in order to attract traders, you need to offer leverage, I don't believe this should be offered "on chain".In the current forex market, it's the brokers that are offering the traders leverage. Leverage is actually a tool that they exploit to make money since they know 90% of traders who use high leverage end up blowing up their accounts. The brokers that allow 100x leverage don't pass the clients orders to the actual market, they take the opposite side of the trade and pocket any spreads or commissions as well as all the clients cash when they blow up from over leveraging. It's a business plan that has worked for decades.Bitshares is not designed to act as a broker and offer leverage. Not only are the mechanics to process the leveraged trade not present, but the risk management protocol would also need to be developed. All brokers have the possibility of blowing up in extreme market conditions, and I don't believe bts should be taking those risks. Bitshares needs to continue to act as an exchange like the nasdaq, and hopefully start making money off of fees. Let third parties come in and offer leverage off chain.Check out bitAssets dude, they do offer you leverage right "on chain", with no broker. Yes, short position with 1.75 collateral gives you 1.33x leverage, do your math. This 1.33x can be easily increased to at least what poloniex offers by bringing MCR down to 1.4.Sorry dude. I was addressing the post that mentioned 100-300 times leverage and that bts is not designed to offer that. And it shouldn't be adapted to try to compete with those brokers.You are right though, bts does offer limited leverageThere are no inherent obstacles in bts which prevent to offer 100-300x leverage. Markets are just too shallow for this at the moment.
Quote from: yvv on April 12, 2017, 01:17:30 pmQuote from: lil_jay890 on April 12, 2017, 12:56:07 pmQuote from: logart on April 12, 2017, 05:34:19 amIf any DEV seeing this, please we need this feature, If we want mass adoption in our DEX we need to have enough liquidity for all stable fiat assets, we will never see mass adoption if we rely only on users to create BITusd or BitCNY . In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD. That way there will be liquidity distributed among all the Bit-assets too, we want liquidity in BitGold, BitSilver, BitEUR, BitUSD, bitCNY, Bitbtc. Witnesses and workers should like the idea too because they are incentivized in diversified assets and they know that diversification is the best and recommended way to store the value of money. And if in the future the more bit-assets are added to DEX like BitCHF or BitMXN, etc the more diversification they will get Bitshares is really appealing for traders but traders search two main things when choosing a broker liquidity and leverage. Leverage is also important for traders in Forex because Forex currencies only move less than a cent sometimes so there's logically the need of leverage to make a profit. 100-500X leverage is needed in forex. 3-10X is only needed in cryptos because they are far more volatile.While I agree that in order to attract traders, you need to offer leverage, I don't believe this should be offered "on chain".In the current forex market, it's the brokers that are offering the traders leverage. Leverage is actually a tool that they exploit to make money since they know 90% of traders who use high leverage end up blowing up their accounts. The brokers that allow 100x leverage don't pass the clients orders to the actual market, they take the opposite side of the trade and pocket any spreads or commissions as well as all the clients cash when they blow up from over leveraging. It's a business plan that has worked for decades.Bitshares is not designed to act as a broker and offer leverage. Not only are the mechanics to process the leveraged trade not present, but the risk management protocol would also need to be developed. All brokers have the possibility of blowing up in extreme market conditions, and I don't believe bts should be taking those risks. Bitshares needs to continue to act as an exchange like the nasdaq, and hopefully start making money off of fees. Let third parties come in and offer leverage off chain.Check out bitAssets dude, they do offer you leverage right "on chain", with no broker. Yes, short position with 1.75 collateral gives you 1.33x leverage, do your math. This 1.33x can be easily increased to at least what poloniex offers by bringing MCR down to 1.4.Sorry dude. I was addressing the post that mentioned 100-300 times leverage and that bts is not designed to offer that. And it shouldn't be adapted to try to compete with those brokers.You are right though, bts does offer limited leverage
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 12, 2017, 12:56:07 pmQuote from: logart on April 12, 2017, 05:34:19 amIf any DEV seeing this, please we need this feature, If we want mass adoption in our DEX we need to have enough liquidity for all stable fiat assets, we will never see mass adoption if we rely only on users to create BITusd or BitCNY . In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD. That way there will be liquidity distributed among all the Bit-assets too, we want liquidity in BitGold, BitSilver, BitEUR, BitUSD, bitCNY, Bitbtc. Witnesses and workers should like the idea too because they are incentivized in diversified assets and they know that diversification is the best and recommended way to store the value of money. And if in the future the more bit-assets are added to DEX like BitCHF or BitMXN, etc the more diversification they will get Bitshares is really appealing for traders but traders search two main things when choosing a broker liquidity and leverage. Leverage is also important for traders in Forex because Forex currencies only move less than a cent sometimes so there's logically the need of leverage to make a profit. 100-500X leverage is needed in forex. 3-10X is only needed in cryptos because they are far more volatile.While I agree that in order to attract traders, you need to offer leverage, I don't believe this should be offered "on chain".In the current forex market, it's the brokers that are offering the traders leverage. Leverage is actually a tool that they exploit to make money since they know 90% of traders who use high leverage end up blowing up their accounts. The brokers that allow 100x leverage don't pass the clients orders to the actual market, they take the opposite side of the trade and pocket any spreads or commissions as well as all the clients cash when they blow up from over leveraging. It's a business plan that has worked for decades.Bitshares is not designed to act as a broker and offer leverage. Not only are the mechanics to process the leveraged trade not present, but the risk management protocol would also need to be developed. All brokers have the possibility of blowing up in extreme market conditions, and I don't believe bts should be taking those risks. Bitshares needs to continue to act as an exchange like the nasdaq, and hopefully start making money off of fees. Let third parties come in and offer leverage off chain.Check out bitAssets dude, they do offer you leverage right "on chain", with no broker. Yes, short position with 1.75 collateral gives you 1.33x leverage, do your math. This 1.33x can be easily increased to at least what poloniex offers by bringing MCR down to 1.4.
Quote from: logart on April 12, 2017, 05:34:19 amIf any DEV seeing this, please we need this feature, If we want mass adoption in our DEX we need to have enough liquidity for all stable fiat assets, we will never see mass adoption if we rely only on users to create BITusd or BitCNY . In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD. That way there will be liquidity distributed among all the Bit-assets too, we want liquidity in BitGold, BitSilver, BitEUR, BitUSD, bitCNY, Bitbtc. Witnesses and workers should like the idea too because they are incentivized in diversified assets and they know that diversification is the best and recommended way to store the value of money. And if in the future the more bit-assets are added to DEX like BitCHF or BitMXN, etc the more diversification they will get Bitshares is really appealing for traders but traders search two main things when choosing a broker liquidity and leverage. Leverage is also important for traders in Forex because Forex currencies only move less than a cent sometimes so there's logically the need of leverage to make a profit. 100-500X leverage is needed in forex. 3-10X is only needed in cryptos because they are far more volatile.While I agree that in order to attract traders, you need to offer leverage, I don't believe this should be offered "on chain".In the current forex market, it's the brokers that are offering the traders leverage. Leverage is actually a tool that they exploit to make money since they know 90% of traders who use high leverage end up blowing up their accounts. The brokers that allow 100x leverage don't pass the clients orders to the actual market, they take the opposite side of the trade and pocket any spreads or commissions as well as all the clients cash when they blow up from over leveraging. It's a business plan that has worked for decades.Bitshares is not designed to act as a broker and offer leverage. Not only are the mechanics to process the leveraged trade not present, but the risk management protocol would also need to be developed. All brokers have the possibility of blowing up in extreme market conditions, and I don't believe bts should be taking those risks. Bitshares needs to continue to act as an exchange like the nasdaq, and hopefully start making money off of fees. Let third parties come in and offer leverage off chain.
If any DEV seeing this, please we need this feature, If we want mass adoption in our DEX we need to have enough liquidity for all stable fiat assets, we will never see mass adoption if we rely only on users to create BITusd or BitCNY . In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD. That way there will be liquidity distributed among all the Bit-assets too, we want liquidity in BitGold, BitSilver, BitEUR, BitUSD, bitCNY, Bitbtc. Witnesses and workers should like the idea too because they are incentivized in diversified assets and they know that diversification is the best and recommended way to store the value of money. And if in the future the more bit-assets are added to DEX like BitCHF or BitMXN, etc the more diversification they will get Bitshares is really appealing for traders but traders search two main things when choosing a broker liquidity and leverage. Leverage is also important for traders in Forex because Forex currencies only move less than a cent sometimes so there's logically the need of leverage to make a profit. 100-500X leverage is needed in forex. 3-10X is only needed in cryptos because they are far more volatile.
Check out bitAssets dude, they do offer you leverage right "on chain", with no broker. Yes, short position with 1.75 collateral gives you 1.33x leverage, do your math. This 1.33x can be easily increased to at least what poloniex offers by bringing MCR down to 1.4.
In fact, I'm proposing that the BTS blockchain automatically creates and pays an equal or fixed amount of value diversified in all Bit-assets. Not just in BitUSD.
Quote from: tbone on April 06, 2017, 04:04:22 pmNo offense, but what you're describing doesn't just sound complicated, but actually is unnecessarily complicated. I couldn't be offended even if you said it is stupid. It is your observation and I respect that.Quote from: tbone on April 06, 2017, 04:04:22 pmAnd it also doesn't achieve the goal of having witness payouts get automatically and seamlessly converted from BTS to bitUSD before disbursing to witnesses. When you have a pool that self maintains preset balance it is ease to set up automatic payments from it. The main problem is how to "converted from BTS to bitUSD seamlessly" taking in consideration market forces.
No offense, but what you're describing doesn't just sound complicated, but actually is unnecessarily complicated.
And it also doesn't achieve the goal of having witness payouts get automatically and seamlessly converted from BTS to bitUSD before disbursing to witnesses.
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on April 05, 2017, 10:51:25 pmQuote from: Geneko on April 05, 2017, 10:06:00 pmI thought about this many times. Let me share this recent one.Block rewards and workers are payed from reserve fund. Obvious solution would be that reserve fund gets ability to pay in MPA assets.I am not familiar how hard proposed change would be, but for the purpose of this brainstorm lets pretend it is feasible. It is already discussed many time so I wont repeat, but reserve fund should not be maintainer of collateral positions because it is not able to cope with market forces. But it could borrow MPAs from shareholders and traders which can. It could borrow on market established interest rate (like 5% meme) let the market decide, up to some figure, for instance two year worth of expenses(adjustable by comity).Interests would be payed from reserve fund in BTS at feed price on hourly bases like vesting balances. The long position could be settled at any time from the reserve fund in BTS at current feed price. Everyone who want to settle MPAs could get current feed price worth of BTS from reserve fund, within 24 hour to prior notice as already defined (settle option). These acquired MPAs could burn the dept, so dept account could also have negative balance. The fact that this market opportunity has limited supply should provide additional incentive for borrowers. The liquidity would be increased slowly at a peace of about 2000 bitUSD/day. Two years worth of expenses in bitUSD, at current price, is about 1.32 mil. It is impossible to make any predictions, but such a change could easily double the BTS price in short time. There is inbuilt fluctuating factor in every price, including witness pay and workers price. With bitUSD price denomination for witness and workers pay, I am confident it could at least cancel additional interest expenses. Also improve liquidity, get market adjust BTS supply, get more incentive for witness and workers, provide more transparent pricing and steady stream of fresh MPAs liquidity. My feeling is this idea isn't simple enough to understand. A more simple and elegant implementation would be preferred.I know it sounds little complicated but for the sake of an argument let me support it with example, how it would look like in UI, I suppose everyone is familiar with it.Like we have "borrow" button, we could also have "lend" button. When it is pressed, new window pop up with option to fill amount and interest rate. It could be the same as borrow option, a slider and manual fill , with same mechanics and comments like "you don't have sufficient funds", etc..Block chain will fill order, the one with lowest interest rate (upper interest rate limit set buy commity), until upper fund limit is reached (also set by commity). After upper fund limit is reached, blockchain will fill lowest interest rate orders and borrow back upper ones. So for example, lets assume, upper interest rate limit is set to 20% and upper fund limit is set to 1mil bitUSD. If I want to lend 100 bitUSD with interest rate of 5%, my order would be filled, if upper fund limit isn't reached. After upper fund limit is reached, if there's any 40 bitUSD offered with 4.8% interest rate and my long has highest interest rate, my long would be borrowed back to me for 40 bitUSD in bitUSD, and 60 bitUSD maintained.All the time my long position exists I would be payed bitUSD interest, from reserve fund denominated in BTS(at feed price) which will show in vesting balances. At any time I could decide to lower my interest rate, and if I decide to exit my long (partially or fully), I would be payed bitUSD worth of BTS at feed price.Edit:The critical part not mentioned could be as follows. When order is filled you are practically "locked" until someones outbids you or you decide to settle long position. Possible margin call would automatically trigger long settle option.
Quote from: Geneko on April 05, 2017, 10:06:00 pmI thought about this many times. Let me share this recent one.Block rewards and workers are payed from reserve fund. Obvious solution would be that reserve fund gets ability to pay in MPA assets.I am not familiar how hard proposed change would be, but for the purpose of this brainstorm lets pretend it is feasible. It is already discussed many time so I wont repeat, but reserve fund should not be maintainer of collateral positions because it is not able to cope with market forces. But it could borrow MPAs from shareholders and traders which can. It could borrow on market established interest rate (like 5% meme) let the market decide, up to some figure, for instance two year worth of expenses(adjustable by comity).Interests would be payed from reserve fund in BTS at feed price on hourly bases like vesting balances. The long position could be settled at any time from the reserve fund in BTS at current feed price. Everyone who want to settle MPAs could get current feed price worth of BTS from reserve fund, within 24 hour to prior notice as already defined (settle option). These acquired MPAs could burn the dept, so dept account could also have negative balance. The fact that this market opportunity has limited supply should provide additional incentive for borrowers. The liquidity would be increased slowly at a peace of about 2000 bitUSD/day. Two years worth of expenses in bitUSD, at current price, is about 1.32 mil. It is impossible to make any predictions, but such a change could easily double the BTS price in short time. There is inbuilt fluctuating factor in every price, including witness pay and workers price. With bitUSD price denomination for witness and workers pay, I am confident it could at least cancel additional interest expenses. Also improve liquidity, get market adjust BTS supply, get more incentive for witness and workers, provide more transparent pricing and steady stream of fresh MPAs liquidity. My feeling is this idea isn't simple enough to understand. A more simple and elegant implementation would be preferred.
I thought about this many times. Let me share this recent one.Block rewards and workers are payed from reserve fund. Obvious solution would be that reserve fund gets ability to pay in MPA assets.I am not familiar how hard proposed change would be, but for the purpose of this brainstorm lets pretend it is feasible. It is already discussed many time so I wont repeat, but reserve fund should not be maintainer of collateral positions because it is not able to cope with market forces. But it could borrow MPAs from shareholders and traders which can. It could borrow on market established interest rate (like 5% meme) let the market decide, up to some figure, for instance two year worth of expenses(adjustable by comity).Interests would be payed from reserve fund in BTS at feed price on hourly bases like vesting balances. The long position could be settled at any time from the reserve fund in BTS at current feed price. Everyone who want to settle MPAs could get current feed price worth of BTS from reserve fund, within 24 hour to prior notice as already defined (settle option). These acquired MPAs could burn the dept, so dept account could also have negative balance. The fact that this market opportunity has limited supply should provide additional incentive for borrowers. The liquidity would be increased slowly at a peace of about 2000 bitUSD/day. Two years worth of expenses in bitUSD, at current price, is about 1.32 mil. It is impossible to make any predictions, but such a change could easily double the BTS price in short time. There is inbuilt fluctuating factor in every price, including witness pay and workers price. With bitUSD price denomination for witness and workers pay, I am confident it could at least cancel additional interest expenses. Also improve liquidity, get market adjust BTS supply, get more incentive for witness and workers, provide more transparent pricing and steady stream of fresh MPAs liquidity.
Quote from: xeroc on April 05, 2017, 03:47:44 pm* The entity/business could run with the BTS or simply not burn itIf there's any type of trusted group/foundation/company involved then this idea is no good. It would be a step backwards to involve any third party.Currently the blockchain currently pays the witnesses and workers in BTS, the idea is that the blockchain pay them in BitUSD instead.
* The entity/business could run with the BTS or simply not burn it
Another issue is how to deal with the accruing / accumulating nature of worker / witness payments.I mean witness pay is paid in BTS per block. I don't see how you could pay witnesses incrementally without increasing the interval of payouts. Payments With 21 witnesses, 3 second block times and price per BTS at $0.005 that comes out to roughly $20USD per day or ~4k BTS. Each witness account would have to be tracked as to how many blocks it generated during the payment period, be it daily / weekly / monthly. I like the idea in general, but believe the devil is in the details of implementation. Should conversions of BTS be done per witness per pay period or should a witness pay pool of BitUSD be created for all witness daily / weekly / monthly and from that pool each witness' pay is calculated based on the blocks they produced? It might also be prudent to build in a fallback strategy to revert to payouts in BTS to cover situations where the BTS price drops very low and remain there which might drain the reserve pool into oblivion. That may be such a rare situation it isn't worth coding to cover, but frankly this is an idea we may not be able to anticipate all of the ramifications of.As @tbone pointed out, changes will be required in a number of different areas of the UI as well as the backend. So this may not be a quick or cheap proposal to implement.The reserve pool is large enough now however that I believe it's a good time to give something like this a try. Let's get more discussion on the finer points of this with an eye towards implementation issues. In particular I'd like to hear from @kenCode, @xeroc or others who are familiar with the C++ codebase. No offense intended, but @fav's comment to basically just have one person go off and just "do it" (i.e. create a proposal) for such a change is not very realistic. This will take more than one mind working together to accomplish to make sure we cover all bases.
In my last post I highlighted some of the tremendous benefits of paying workers/witnesses in the bitAsset currency of their choice. So what are the downsides? I can't really think of any. It doesn't create inflation. Worst case scenario, all bitAssets are force settled by workers/witnesses and all of the associated collateral simply goes right back into the reserve pool.What about the cost to implement it? I have no idea what the cost would be. But I can't imagine it would be prohibitive, especially relative to the benefits derived. Maybe someone could give us a ballpark estimate of the development cost, just so we have a rough idea. Below is a list to help jump start a determination of specifically what items need to be coded. We would need to create/modify parameters for committee to specify: o level of witness pay in terms of bitUSD (or bitCNY?) instead of BTS o % of witness/worker pay that should be made using bitAssets o which bitAssets are eligible to be chosen by witnesses/workers for their pay o collateral level to be used when automatically creating bitAssets used for payments It will also be necessary to enable: o witnessses to specify which eligible bitAsset currency they would like to be paid in o workers to specify worker proposal price in terms of bitUSD (or bitCNY?) instead of BTS
go ahead, get a quotation, hire a dev and setup a worker proposal. less talk more action
Quote from: bitcrab on September 05, 2016, 08:37:11 amthere is a problem: does the market has bitUSD demand?I have expected that the bitUSD liquidity would rise obviously after the parameter change, but seems I was wrong.now it is safe enough to generate bitUSD by shorting, but seems few people like to use this leverage tool, weird.Hopefully, BlockPay will change this situation. @Chris4210
there is a problem: does the market has bitUSD demand?I have expected that the bitUSD liquidity would rise obviously after the parameter change, but seems I was wrong.now it is safe enough to generate bitUSD by shorting, but seems few people like to use this leverage tool, weird.
But both of them are not even close (it seems like they are not even trying) to see the real problems they are creating with the steam design.It is such a money grab right now....enormous money grab...NuBits scam seems like a child play...
I think you misunderstand. You say "the problem of witnesses and workers selling their BitUSD for BTS" This is actually the benefit. Witnesses and workers would most likely sell their BitUSD to others, this means there would be a bigger supply of BitUSD for others to buy.
How also making bitusd a core trading pair in gui also. With enough liquidity people would rather against bitusd than other coins.Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Quote from: KenMonkey on August 17, 2016, 01:22:22 amPerhaps have worker proposals contracts "we'll pay you 50USD in value each day" but make the 'value' in BTS. Did you mean "but make the payment in BTS"? I was thinking about something like that... it doesn't solve problem with low liquidity of BitUSD but IMHO is closer to how people think when making a worker proposal.
Perhaps have worker proposals contracts "we'll pay you 50USD in value each day" but make the 'value' in BTS.
The kosher way to do this would be through a smart contract, like steem did. But, this would require some efforts from devs, and for this reason is unlikely to happen soon.
Quote from: bitcrab on August 18, 2016, 03:14:43 amthe idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically with high enough price to cover the debt position.let's first do some calculation.currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.to make this happen, we need:1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.Absolutely we need consensus, but I don't think people will support accessing the reserve pool at a rate higher than the current max spending budget of: 14,675 BTS per hour. (see here http://cryptofresh.com/reserve)Like you say this max 14675 bts hour is equivalent to $80 per hour at todays prices.How we make this max worker budget function as bitUSD instead of BTS is tricky. I can't see how it would work with the decentralised voting system if the committee is paying the workers.
the idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically with high enough price to cover the debt position.let's first do some calculation.currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.to make this happen, we need:1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.
Quote from: valtr on August 17, 2016, 07:07:35 amQuote from: JonnyBitcoin on August 17, 2016, 06:43:54 amQuote from: KenMonkey on August 17, 2016, 01:12:04 amAs far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation. 1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply. 1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea. What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserveCurrently just over a billion BTSThis fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected. Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value. The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.I am afraid that it does not solve the problem of selling bitUSD by workers. Workers and witness sell to get fiat. Maybe part would be sold directly on bitUSD/USD market instead in bitUSD-BTS-USD order. It would be better for BTS, but the only solution I see is bitUSD commonly used for trade see BitShares Munich project.I think you misunderstand. You say "the problem of witnesses and workers selling their BitUSD for BTS" This is actually the benefit. Witnesses and workers would most likely sell their BitUSD to others, this means there would be a bigger supply of BitUSD for others to buy.
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on August 17, 2016, 06:43:54 amQuote from: KenMonkey on August 17, 2016, 01:12:04 amAs far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation. 1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply. 1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea. What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserveCurrently just over a billion BTSThis fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected. Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value. The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.I am afraid that it does not solve the problem of selling bitUSD by workers. Workers and witness sell to get fiat. Maybe part would be sold directly on bitUSD/USD market instead in bitUSD-BTS-USD order. It would be better for BTS, but the only solution I see is bitUSD commonly used for trade see BitShares Munich project.
Quote from: KenMonkey on August 17, 2016, 01:12:04 amAs far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation. 1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply. 1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea. What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserveCurrently just over a billion BTSThis fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected. Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value. The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.
As far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation. 1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply. 1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea. What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.
When you will ask Americans which currency is the most stable for them, they will answer - USDWhen you will ask Chinese which currency is the most stable for them, they will answer - CNYThis is obvious, right?So why we are selling and buying things here with BTS? This thread is of course related to @tonyk 's thread: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!When I came to bitshares, I was convinced, that bitshares has great value for companies, because there is no risk at all, when you use it as derivative asset. This is great explained here:https://youtu.be/pbX4nt2UKP4?t=6m55sSo... the question is, why we pay witnesses with BTS? We should ask each of them which bitAsset they prefer and give them...
Well, we cannot ignore that Steem took the intertubes in a viral way, which Bitshares failed (so far) to do - therefore, one would expect more SBD liquidity just from that alone.What you propose here may also have merit, I confess the numbers and implications befuddle me .. it would make more sense to pay workers with smartcoins, but are there hidden implications, that's my concern.Another key part of the reason is that the documentation about shorting and creating bitAssets is frankly very confusing .. I played around with it a couple of times, and always got margin called.. in my sleep.. because there's no stop-loss ..