Look how much fun these guys are having:

http://maryland.247sports.com/Board/56/Contents/2015-Celebrity-Death-Pool-Game-Thread-34083066

Not sure if that would fit into the current price feed mechanism, maybe when prediction markets are working

We need a business opportunity inside the wallet, one is lending business for traders.
Like I can lend my bitUSD so traders can short any market trading bitUSD at any price they want with no cover expiration as long as they continue to pay the % fee daily.
Then I can earn daily % of interest with % fee to bitshares as well.  Like how bitfinex,com works, but it is better from decentralized exchanger.

Another business opportunity  is insurance to lenders. 

How nice to invest more fiat money if we have this features in the wallet.

just my

Yes! Unfortunately bond market is post 1.0.

Companies do stock splits when the cost of the share gets too high, because you cant buy half a share. Its psychological. Yes you may be able to buy half a BitAAPL, but the asset that it tracks can only be bought whole.

I think Apple did one around when their stock price was $700.

make the trade experience simple as it is on traditional centralized on-line exchanges

Exactly, thats why Im so excited about the web-based wallet. Bter/cryptsy's cost per new user is so low because they can instantly sign up, deposit and trade. Our web-based wallet is not there yet because there is no clear place to deposit, and there is no trollbox which people are used to seeing in a crypto exchange.

But with just a bit more effort it could get there. We should make it use Metaexchange's api without even having to visit their site. That would lower the cost per new user.

Thanks Bytemaster for this post!

Cheap shares!

Market is irrational. Does dogecoin have this rate of development: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/commits/develop ?

Whether this has to be done client-side or built into the blockchain, autobridging would add so much liquidity to the exchange.

Are the devs thinking about doing it?

The addresses that have the vested balances belong to Adam .. no one besides him has access to those funds

Who's dumb decision was that? It should have been structured as a bonus, based on how many US elections Adam can get BitShares used for (0). And whats the point of vesting something if only one person has control?

I didn't even know he returned his shares?! Where is that written?

What I should have said was "forgone his performance-related bonus".

It's vested over a 2y period and IIRC handed over to Adam .. but can't say for sure ..

Thanks, but arent those 2 things the opposite?

I agree with NewMine's post. Who says he never comes up with positive suggestions.