Sounds like a plan, i kinda like these simple marketing solutions.
Before a delegate would be selected we could give it a test run, to see the results.
I'd be willing to put a bit of BTC in the faucet, for this experiment.

TLDR, ticket in OP is still under discussion.

Some history.  A feature which has been on our road-map for some time is relative orders, where people can place a bid or ask at a given percentage of the feed, like "I want to buy at 95% of the feed and I want to sell at 105% of the feed," without having to run scripts and spam the blockchain with a ton transactions.

I was tasked with implementing relative orders (more specifically, rehauling bytemaster's implementation to use percentages of the feed instead of absolute difference from the feed, and thoroughly testing it in preparation for release).

During the testing, I found certain fundamental architectural limitations of our matching algorithm prevented us from properly matching relative orders.  The same limitations also prevent certain combinations of existing order types from matching correctly in certain circumstances, which subsequently occurred on the main network.  A community contributor (pmconrad) advised us of this, which I already suspected due to what I knew about the architecture, and confirmed in testing.

My solution was to embark on a significant refactoring of our market engine to make orders execute the way we always intended them to.  I had hoped to have it ready for initial testing this week, however I've been hugely distracted upgrading my own delegate for the 0.6.x hardfork.

bytemaster thinks I am being overly optimistic about the timetable for my refactoring, and thus is looking for a change that will fix the problems but be much less expensive (in terms of developer time).  This ticket is the solution he's hit upon.

What we need to do is sit down and discuss the options, which will happen just as soon as I finish dealing with my obstreperous delegate VPS.

So the solution to implementing relative orders, is to not implement them, sacrificing yield, and only allow shorting against yourself?

so if you wanted to short, you now have to sell your bitasset first, before a profit can be made?

Quote from: inarizushi on February 12, 2015, 08:56:09 am

Sigh. How are shapeshift integration, metaexchange, cryptoedge, the much better 0.6.1 wallet, not short term good news ?

The market apparently didnt care about any of those things yet.

Maybe it's time for a little reality check.
Gateways and UIA like crypto hedge, are basic functions for a 2.0 crypto, so they shouldn't move the price to much.

I also have some doubts about the bitusd multi pool. Normal multipools use their BTC earned from mining coins to buy up the POS coin it supports, effectively creating buying power.
Now we are buying up bitusd wich shouldn't move the price (BTS) to much. Unless the miners will hold them and creating more demand for bitusd and thus creating more bitusd,
But miners have proven the be the least loyal, and they have bills to pay.
So they would probably sell their bitusd again.
Currently BM is paying a bonus of  out of his own pocket. (Thanks)
But I wonder if the multipool was to achieve a total payout of 1 million bitusd (at a cost of 50.000 bitusd),if it would have a serious effect on BTS.

Wallet improvements are also pretty basic and shouldn't move the price to much.
However, the 1.0 version will allow for some killer third party apps, like crowdfunding platforms that use the bit fiats and UIA to build there own trading platforms using our blockchain.

So untill the time that we have a 1.0 wallet with some killer third party apps. The only hope we have for short term gains. Would probably be BTC rising.

Apparantly coinjar released a new feature. Allowing you to hedge BTC against AUD, GBP, EUR and USD.

https://blog.coinjar.com/2015/02/10/introducing-hedged-accounts/

Shouldn't the burn wall, only have the option of burning BTS?

Burning bitassets, would lead to fractional reserves right?

edit:
Fractional reserves might be the wrong term.
But if we allow bitassets to be burned, it would hurt the black swan resolution, because there would be less bitassets to liquidate.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/27/BitAssets-and-Black-Swan-Events/

Hey,

thank you all so much for your trust! I've thought about the last weeks, if it would be a good idea to create a 2nd delegate!
I've talked with several members of our community about ... consense on western side = yes … consense on eastern side = no.

So at the end, i've decided, NOT to go with a 2nd delegate!
In addition to this i'll try to get my own BitShares related business out soon, but also don't want to go more into detail now!!

I'm personally thinking, we should come more together again!
East & West, i'm feeling good for BitShares 2015

best
cass

there is a bit of a divided community.
Thanks for respecting their wishes.
The best of luck on your future business