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.


Messages - tbone

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 43
256
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 07, 2016, 10:00:25 pm »
Quote from: chryspano on March 07, 2016, 09:03:23 pm
@tbone

what about this?

Quote from: bytemaster on February 20, 2016, 06:08:19 pm
Has anyone worried about "self trading" sat down and attempted to strategize how they would do this in a market with at least two market makers competing for the reward?

Assume a market with a price of 1:1 and a spread of 5% on both sides.

Alice places an order at .95 and must wait 10 minutes before she qualifies for a reward.
After 9 minutes, Bob places his order at .95001. 
Alice is now unable to match herself without buying out Bob first.
Not wanting to let Bob grab the liquidity reward, Alice moves her order to .95002 and the clock resets for 10 more minutes.

This back and forth will continue until the spread is greatly reduced. The narrower the spread, the riskier the market making becomes. Who is going to place a huge wall at the top off the book?

Any rewards paid do not cover 100% of market risks which means market makers will still have to maintain a reasonable spread and there will be MANY orders in front of them.

Go ahead and attempt to name a strategy that works to abuse the rewards in light of market competition.

Lastly assume a 3rd actor, someone who knows market makers are attempting to pump fake volume just to get a reward. This actor will place their orders just in front of the market maker just to collect the spread on the market makers "back and forth" selling.


One problem is that in the early days there very well might only be 1 market maker in a given market, so that's a problem.  Also, multiple market makers may collude rather than competing, so they might stay out of each other's way, hit each other's bids and asks, etc.  So that's another problem.  But we can turn these into non-issues by NOT rewarding people for trading, and instead only rewarding them for providing liquidity i.e. placing orders on the book.   

Obviously we do want trades to occur...but beyond getting orders onto the books to begin with, that means incentivizing takers, NOT makers.  When it comes to incentivizing takers, just having liquidity is a start by itself (no one wants to trade an illiquid market).  But we need to further incentivize takers by giving them more good reasons to be on the DEX to begin with.  @Empirical1.2's yield harvesting idea will help with this by attracting attention and new users and giving current shareholders a very good reason to be on the DEX.   

Being first or early to offer trading of high interest currencies such as LISK will also attract users and attention.   Offering lower trading fees for a trial period could help.  Having stealth (coming soon) will help.  Having a hosted web wallet (coming soon) will help.  Having 2FA (coming soon) will help.  Having real BTC on the DEX (i.e. Bitcoin sidechain) would be a big help.   And marketing our features/benefits would help a lot, too, of course. 

We just need to get going with these things. 

257
General Discussion / Re: Liquidity Pool Discussion
« on: March 07, 2016, 08:51:13 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 07, 2016, 06:14:40 pm
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on March 07, 2016, 06:00:02 pm

wow, $120k in yield payments to bitUSD short sellers in 6 months? is that just an estimate of what 2% APR on borrowed funds would entail? i thought the proposed experiment was 2%?

interesting point re: NuBits. still, i'd rather start with wider upper and lower bounds around a single smartcoin to experiment; something like 20% spread would be a good starting point IMO, but i'm a fan of experimenting and adjusting based on results.

I think a 20% spread on fixed settlement ranges would be OK but not on the spread in which we subsidized liquidity. If the spread was very much wider than 0.99 - 1.01 the majority of the time, I don't think BitUSD would be very appealing to the man on the street but I also agree with experimenting and adjusting results. (If we have a liquidity pool and there is excess demand at 1.01 we would either raise the interest to attract more BitUSD to the pool like the implementation in the OP or raise it to 1.02 and so on. You could also have daily limits.)

Regards the yield, the poll was for diluting BTS at a rate of 2% a year for 6 months. (Or as some prefer to say, using 30% of the  daily worker budget https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/ ) Of course you could yield harvest and provided total BitUSD was < 1/2 CAP of BTS your return would be greater than the % BTS was being diluted, so basically it's a cost every sharholder can at least mitigate. 

Quote
wow, $120k in yield payments to bitUSD short sellers in 6 months?

Not to short seller but to BitUSD yield or a combo of BitUSD yield and BitUSD shorts.
(If we added yield we would also probably lower forced settlement which would also be a positive for shorts.)

I think using 30% of available worker funds might be a bit much considering we still need to fund liquidity, not to mention we don't want to crowd out other development.  And don't forget, some here would rather we stagnate and die on the vine as long as we don't spend any money.  So we'll have somewhat of head wind on this by default. 

However, looking at the numbers, you mentioned $120k total yield over 6 months equating to 10% APR on $1.2M.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 10% APR on $1.2M over 6 months would only be $60k, which would be $10k per month, no?  And based on current prices, our worker budget is ~$60k/month.  So if my math is correct we would be looking at only about ~17% of total budget for workers.  Am I missing something?

258
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 07, 2016, 08:15:45 pm »
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on February 20, 2016, 04:56:14 am
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on February 20, 2016, 03:48:12 am
i would suggest paying these kickbacks on a sliding scale based on length of time on the order books so if someone had a real safe hedge on the books for months that saved us from having a black swan event then he would deserve more than someone who put an order up for 10 min then sold to himself

i like a sliding scale concept, but actually think it should work in the reverse. open orders deep in the order book don't add real liquidity IMO, the action happens on the margin and closing the bid-ask spread is key. if there's going to be any subsidy for liquidity, it would best be spent narrowing spreads. that said, i'm more a fan of fee discounts than kickbacks; rewarding higher frequency trading and/or open orders near the highest bid and lowest ask.

I'm not sure I agree with any rewards based on filled orders (HFT or otherwise) since that's where there's an incentive to do self-trading.  Whereas if we reward based only on placing orders on the books, then there's no incentive to self-trade, only to provide liquidity. 

Beyond that, I agree with larger rewards for open orders closer to best bid and ask.  So we can factor in size of orders placed, time on order book, and proximity to best bid/ask.  We should probably also factor in balance between buy side and sell side, although I imagine at any given time we can skew this more toward either the buy side or the sell side depending on market direction. 

259
General Discussion / Re: Would you support 2% dilution to BitAsset Yield for a 6 month limited trial?
« on: March 07, 2016, 05:42:15 pm »
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on March 07, 2016, 04:09:30 pm
i voted YES purely on the condition that this is a LIMITED TRIAL with perpetuation of the policy contingent on results.

I, too, am in favor of limiting this to a 6-month trial.  I propose targeting it 75% to BitUSD, 20% BitCNY and 5% BitEur, with a goal of creating the equivalent of at least $1M in total BitAssets.  Also, to receive yield, perhaps it should be required to lock up funds for a month at a time.  So yield would be paid every month starting 1 month after lock-up (on an account by account basis), and early withdrawal means yield is forfeited. 

So we get people to move funds onto the DEX, they become more frequent users of the DEX, and create BitAssets propelling us to worldwide fiat-pegged leaders, which will garner greater overall attention for Bitshares in general and our smartcoins in particular.  Not to mention new users that might be attracted by the yield to buy and hold smartcoins.

On the liquidity front, we can launch this in conjunction with liquidity pools that any of these new users and new BitAsset creators/holders can voluntarily participate in.  This can be incentivized by the Nasdaq-style market maker liquidity rewards program (to be developed separately, discussed on another thread), which of course any liquidity provider can participate in (and which UIA issuers can use with their own funds to incentivize liquidity in the markets for their own assets). 

If we require generation of more liquidity, the rewards can be increased as necessary.  Conversely, as liquidity grows, the rewards can be diminished and directed to other BitAsset  markets such as BitGOLD, BitSILVER, BitOIL, BitAAPL, etc. 

These are just some suggestions and starting points for further discussion, including how some of the pieces of the puzzle might fit together.  Thoughts @Empirical1.2, @cylonmaker2053?  Anyone else with constructive input?



260
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: March 07, 2016, 09:06:05 am »
@svk: Another suggestion. It would be helpful if there was greater visual distinction between the order book boxes and the history box.  For that and other reasons, I highly recommend removing the color coding from the bid and ask values since the colors don't vary from one value to the next (so the values themselves don't need to be color coded, just the box itself).  On the other hand, the color coding of the trades in the history does vary and therefore the individual values should remain color coded. 

In addition to the thin line in the headers of the bid and ask order books, you could also color code the entire header.  You can also place a thin box around both the bid and ask columns, which would have the additional benefit of calling attention to specifically which columns are the bid and ask columns.  I also recommend changing the bid/ask column headers to "Bid" and "Ask" instead of both saying "Price".  See image below.

On another note, the chart has become a bit short, too short to reasonably display indicators.  I think that is fine as the default, but it would be really nice if the user could choose to expand its height.  Perhaps you can put a gear icon in the chart header to select chart height: short, medium, tall?  Or even better, can the chart be sized by grabbing the bottom edge of it and dragging it down/up?  That would be great if it's possible.


261
General Discussion / Re: Marketing plan for Bitshares 2.1
« on: March 07, 2016, 09:02:36 am »
I understand where @Samupaha is coming from.  I think it would also be good to know when the new hosted web wallet will be ready.  Also, how is 2FA coming along? 

@xeroc, do you have any updates you can share with us?  Thanks.   

262
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 07, 2016, 07:48:44 am »
Quote from: kenCode on March 06, 2016, 09:43:09 am
I'd like to know what @ccedk @Stan @Riverhead @onceuponatime and @bytemaster think of that yield harvesting proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html
 
Like I mentioned @tbone -if it brings liquidity to bitEUR, bitCNY and bitUSD, as well as tightening those spreads then I am all for it
...especially since this is just a 6-month trial.
 
The poll suggests that stakeholders are in favor of this too, so why not give it a green light?
 
BSIP needed @Empirical1.2 please. Unless one of the 5 folks above has a good reason not to try this out, then I will support this.

@kenCode: during the mumble 2 Fridays ago, @bytemaster said he had read Empirical's post and thought he was reading his mind.  He said paying yield is simply paying people to lock up their funds, an idea he himself has proposed on multiple occasions.  He said doing so gives people a reason to stay in, encourages them to be engaged in the process, encourages them to be active voters, etc.  He also said this concept is sound, although he pointed out that yield harvesting means people are shorting BitAssets to themselves (i.e. no net long or short position), which doesn't create liquidity.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would make 2 points.  First, not everyone taking advantage of the yield will be harvesting.  Some will be new users attracted by the yield to buy and hold BitAssets.  So that real demand means new users and some increased liquidity.  Moreover, we could pay just enough yield to incentivize people to create and hold BitAssets (must lock funds for a minimum period of time), but then also incentivize anyone willing to make the BitAssets they now hold available for a liquidity pool used to create substantial buy and sell walls at the peg.

So what we end up with is more current BTS holders moving their funds onto the DEX and creating BitAssets, which will make us the world's fiat-pegged crypto leader (which earns us attention and is attractive to merchants), we add new BitAsset users, greater liquidity, and a tighter peg.  I think we're making a huge mistake if we don't seriously discuss this concept. 

263
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 06, 2016, 09:10:13 am »
Quote from: kenCode on March 06, 2016, 06:27:13 am
Quote from: tbone on March 05, 2016, 07:58:50 pm
Quote from: kenCode on March 05, 2016, 06:21:11 am
Quote from: tbone on March 05, 2016, 02:01:25 am

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of).  But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system.  So why even bother? 

Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg.  This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity.  This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle. 

All we need to do is jump start this process.  We need to prime the pump, so to speak.  It will not happen on its own.  We are running out of time.  And unfortunately this community is asleep.  Respected contributors are not paying attention.  Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own.  Let's see how far this gets us.  I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope.  I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered.

@tbone If bitassets become way more liquid with tighter spreads, then call me a supporter (URL of Empirical's BSIP?). Customers will love that too when paying at the cash register since they will pay way less money in fees. Just fyi, merchants pay nothing. Merchants just download the free POS app and then stick the "Smartcoins accepted here" sticker in the window. The rewards card features in the POS gives them even more incentive to use our apps.

@kenCode, Empirical's idea is not the only measure we need.  But as I described up thread, it would be an effective first step toward bootstrapping BitAssets, with very little cost.  Empirical hasn't drafted an official proposal.  I assume he hasn't gotten that far because there hasn't been enough support for it.  Or at least not enough vocalized support.  Although there was a poll, and a slight majority was in favor of it.  Actually, come to think of it, about 21% of the poll respondents voted in favor of not doing this now.  So it was really only 37.7% that was flat out against it. 

In any event, the first URL below is a link to a summary of his idea.  That post has a link at the bottom to another thread with more discussion on the matter.  The second URL below is a link to a post on this thread that further makes the case. 

I hope you'll take a closer look and get behind this idea and hopefully help others see the merit and importance of this.  We don't have time to keep sitting on our hands.  The window of opportunity is going to close.


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg281291.html#msg281291

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21541.msg283518.html#msg283518

264
Technical Support / Re: Change "TRADE" & "TRANSFER" to "EXCHANGE" & "SEND"
« on: March 06, 2016, 07:43:49 am »
Quote from: kenCode on March 06, 2016, 06:41:20 am
Recent Activity should stay where it is now, at the top.
Move Overview section down a bit.
Insert the 7 Explore tiles right there above where Overview was sitting.
Remove the Explore link from the main menu.
Now, there are less clicks to get to what you might want to explore.

I don't recognize the wallet version in the screenshot below.  In the version I have, there's really no good place to put the Explore tiles under Dashboard.  Besides that, I can't imagine so many people are constantly going back and forth between Dashboard and Explore that it's so critical to save a click.  And what about people going from Exchange to Explore?  Should we make it so they can save a click too? 

And finally, I don't understand why @CLains is so hung up on having 3 main menu items vs. 4.  It's only a slight improvement.  But more importantly, the price tag is too heavy considering it requires jam packing the Dashboard with way too much functionality, and such dissimilar functionality at that.   It doesn't make sense.

265
Technical Support / Re: Change "TRADE" & "TRANSFER" to "EXCHANGE" & "SEND"
« on: March 05, 2016, 11:01:53 pm »
Quote from: CLains on March 05, 2016, 10:36:03 pm
Quote from: tbone on March 05, 2016, 10:01:33 pm
As for moving the explore icons onto the dashboard, there is negligible upside (if any at all). 

The feeling is that giving people three choices is a lot better than giving them four.

Perhaps.  But not at all costs.  The cost/benefit of this is extremely unfavorable.   

266
Technical Support / Re: Change "TRADE" & "TRANSFER" to "EXCHANGE" & "SEND"
« on: March 05, 2016, 10:01:33 pm »
I agree that "Send" is much better than "Transfer".  As for "Trade" vs "Exchange", there are some good reasons to use "Trade" (it's shorter, and this is a trading UI, after all).  On the other hand, DEX is short for decentralized exchange, so perhaps using "Exchange" makes more sense.  Not sure it matters very much either way.

As for moving the explore icons onto the dashboard, there is negligible upside (if any at all).  But there is plenty of downside.  First of all, it pushes all of the account information down the page, and some of it OFF the page.  Not good.  To me, that alone is a non-starter.   

Also, under Account (or Dashboard if you have multiple accounts), you find all of the information/settings specific to your account(s).  Explore is totally different in that its a way to search the different types of objects that exist in the system.  The logical separation between this and your account info/settings makes complete sense.  Mashing them together will only muddy the waters and cause confusion.  In fact, people are already sensing this confusion and are now suggesting we remove some of the explore icons.  But each object should have its own icon so people know what system objects exist and can be searched to begin with.  Let's please not start muddying the waters like this.

267
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: March 05, 2016, 08:51:38 pm »
@svk:  My suggestion to combine buy/sell was really only to save enough space in order to put the My Orders box on the second row.  But if you can do so without combining buy/sell, I agree that it's unnecessary to combine them at this time.

Speaking of My Orders, my suggestion to add My Positions was to show ALL positions, not just the positions for the current market.  This way we can see how our positions are doing without leaving the trading screen.  If we can add (either now or at a later date) P/L for each position, that would be great.  Also, each position should have a link which loads that market into the current view.  This would b a nice enhancement.

As for the mirrored order books, I'm glad we agree that it makes more sense that way.  Although perhaps we could give users the option.  Maybe the order book could have a gear icon that allows the user to choose 1) mirrored or not, and 2)  bid/ask vs. ask/bid (even though I've never understood why anyone would ever want to reverse the bid and ask window positions). 

268
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 05, 2016, 07:58:50 pm »
Quote from: kenCode on March 05, 2016, 06:21:11 am
Quote from: tbone on March 05, 2016, 02:01:25 am

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.
tldr, and way too much work being done and products being built to have to constantly check every thread on this damn toxic forum. sum it up for me, please. is someone trying to destroy our core product again? wtf

@kenCode, no one is trying to destroy Bitshares (that I know of).  But our BitAssets are dead until we bootstrap them, which means we have no meaningful BitAssets user base, so you likely won't get more than a tiny handful of merchants to use your POS system.  So why even bother? 

Luckily @Empirical1.2 has been persistent in advancing a very smart idea that would take BTS off the exchanges, get BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR into the hands of a large number of people, make our BitAssets by far the world's leading fiat-pegged crypto, and pave the way for BitAsset holders to voluntarily participate in liquidity pools which, in conjunction with other measures, would lead to tremendous liquidity and a nice tight peg.  This would make the DEX much more useful, which would attract users, further adding to liquidity.  This would also make your POS attractive to merchants, which would further perpetuate the virtuous cycle. 

All we need to do is jump start this process.  We need to prime the pump, so to speak.  It will not happen on its own.  We are running out of time.  And unfortunately this community is asleep.  Respected contributors are not paying attention.  Some appear to have egos that prevent them from TRULY supporting any ideas but their own.  Let's see how far this gets us.  I can tell you I am personally near the end of my rope.  I will not sit here and watch while one of the biggest opportunities in crypto gets squandered. 


269
General Discussion / Re: Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016
« on: March 05, 2016, 02:01:25 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 04, 2016, 03:02:03 pm
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on March 04, 2016, 01:55:06 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on March 04, 2016, 09:08:32 am
Quote from: bytemaster on December 28, 2013, 06:48:58 am
If the largest banks can achieve deposits of over $1 trillion dollars with no meaningful interest, how many deposits could BitShares attract and what would that mean for the value of the bank?

Road Map

1. Lower Forced settlement to 95%
2. 2% BTS per annum directed to BitUSD. 
(With a yield subsidy many BTS Shareholders will yield harvest creating millions of BitUSD.)
3. Spend $200 a day incentivizing $100 000 of liquidity.
(For 0.2% interest per day  many BTS Shareholders send a small portion of their BitUSD to a liquidity pool where it's sold for $1.01 and bought back at $0.99)

Customers can buy this BitUSD from a bridge for fiat/BTC and save/spend it from a basic account & don't need to understand/see the DEX...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Man In Street Account

BitUSD Balance:   $888             Buy BitUSD $1:01         Sell BitUSD $0.99
Current Yield:        4.6%

Buy/Sell with Bitcoin/Bank/Card via our trusted partners.

Visit Exchange (Advanced)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their new BTS (For BitUSD) demand raises the BTS price incentivizing more people to short, possibly with some of the dilution being directed their too. Shareholders/liquidity pool will buy from them to replenish their position.

The yield subsidy is key imo to achieving a better result faster and it's largely self funding https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html
(By the time the yield subsidy is removed, banks will be charging negative interest well below -1%. So no NIRP will make private, zero yield BitUSD seem like a treat.)

i like it, but what about making the solution more general and coded into the smartcoins --fees from each smartcoin exchange go to yield on those smartcoins. that way we're not picking a winner (letting the market decide) and the yield funding process is perpetually self-sustaining. picking any fixed dollar amount from the general pool runs the risk of being the wrong amount and potentially cannibalizes other worker projects that could be funded. it makes more sense to me for every smartcoin to have the potential for yield, the amount varying by popularity of that market.

That's a good idea for when Smartcoin adoption plateaus or reaches maturity because at that point it wouldn't make sense to direct a percentage of BTS to BitAsset yield because it wouldn't be offset by equal or greater demand for BTS and so we would be losing value by subsidizing yield.

However if you fail to direct a percentage of BTS to BitUSD/Other Yield now you may lose the SmartCoin race because...

All else being equal would you rather hold a BitUSD with good yield or a BitUSD with no yield?

How much would it cost a competitor to offer yield?  Nothing.
(For the duration that their SmartCoins in circulation were increasing annually by a greater amount than the cost of the yield.)



Example: Let's say competitor ABC is identical to BTS. They have  a $12 million valuation and ABC is diluting by 2% a year or $20 000 a month and directing that to ABCUSD Yield. That would mean they are able to offer circa +5%  on up to $5 million of ABCUSD.

All else being equal, most customers would presumably choose the crypto USD with yield. So the next $5 million of crypto USD demand will go to ABCUSD not BitUSD. This creates up to $5 million of ABC demand which more than offsets the $200 000 worth of annual ABC sell pressure.  Until new ABC demand is less than the cost to ABC of subsidizing yield, they will grow in value and grow their ABCUSD. (As ABC grows in value the dollar amount of the %  directed to yield will also increase allowing them to attract even more crypto USD demand. Also the % they will need to dilute at a higher valuation to fund development will be much lower than the % BTS needs to dilute to fund the same development.)

ABC as the market leader will then also bootstrap because merchants will see they have millions of ABCUSD with thousands of holders and merchants will want to sell their products and services for ABCUSD much the same way 100 000+ merchants accept BTC but a lot less accept other cryptos like BTS which currently serve a much smaller market. This will create a situation where all else is no longer equal. ABCUSD even without yield at that stage would be superior to BitUSD because it is the most established, known, popular and most importantly has Utility.

Therefore I believe you have to take this approach of giving some of that early demand back to the customer or you will lose to a competitor that does.

This really is quite a smart idea.  It will do what we need right now to help bootstrap BitAssets.  I don't know what we're waiting for.  Pretty soon it will be too late.  @kenCode, I haven't seen you chime in on this once, yet it's YOUR hard work on OpenPOS that is about to be DOA considering that our BitAsset markets are themselves D-E-A-D.  Why are you remaining silent?  Are you not counting on BitAssets?  Do you figure you'll be fine either way considering you support other currencies?  I'm baffled.

270
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: March 04, 2016, 01:33:01 pm »
Quote from: svk on March 03, 2016, 06:43:09 pm
Quote from: tbone on March 03, 2016, 04:50:44 pm
@svk, very nice move narrowing the buy/sell boxes.  That's a nice enhancement on the vertical layout since the most critical live data elements were already visible.  Unfortunately it doesn't help much on the horizontal layout considering you still have to scroll down to place an order (unless you want to do it blindly i.e. without seeing the all-important order book, which is off the page now).  So now you pretty much always have to scroll to do anything on the horizontal layout, instead of having to scroll only when actually placing an order.  None of the serious UIs are set up like that, and this is one of Poloniex's biggest flaws.  I won't push for it anymore, but I do still hope we can correct that.  If/when we do, I have some additional suggestions for enhancing the horizontal layout.   

As always, thanks for your work on this.

Not sure what more I can do here tbh, on my screen which is 1920x1080 I can now see most of the price chart and most of the orderbook at the same time in horizontal mode, and everything easily in vertical mode. So you would still prefer the orderbook to be on the first row with buy/sell below it?

Thanks a lot for your feedback btw, it's much appreciated!

I would say yes, the order book should be on the first row (along with the history).  There's nothing to gain (only something to lose) by having the buy/sell boxes on the first row because you can't place an order without simultaneously looking at the order book, so you have to scroll in order to place an order either way.  Unless of course you can see both rows without scrolling, in which case you don't care very much about the order of the first 2 rows to begin with. 

As for placing the order book and history on the same row, your newly sized history box proves that it's perfectly viable since each order book box requires no more space than the history box does.  I highly recommend putting those elements together on the first row since it's important for them to be visible along with the chart at the same time.  See my mock-up below.

As for the 2nd row, you may notice that my mock-up also demonstrates we can combine buy and sell into one box in order to avoid needing a 3rd row.  So for those with high enough resolution, now they can see everything without scrolling.   And for those with lower resolution, the need to scroll is minimized.  That would be a nice improvement.  Keep in mind that not all crypto trading sites employ separate buy and sell order boxes.  And I don't think I had ever seen such a thing prior to crypto trading.  I really don't understand what the purpose is.  Seems like it's just a waste of space.

Lastly, also demonstrated in the mock-up below, I would like to propose orienting the order book so the buy side mirrors the sell side such that the bid and ask columns are immediately adjacent to each other.  This is a superior layout for the horizontal order book as it offers one of the great benefits of the vertical order book, but in the horizontal orientation. 


Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 43

Page created in 0.183 seconds with 20 queries.