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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 43
226
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 22, 2016, 07:21:37 pm »
Quote from: roadscape on March 22, 2016, 02:24:45 pm
@tonyk Your proposed changes make sense, but continuous monitoring is much more complex than sampling*. What does it capture that sampling can't? And what if samples were e.g. 15 mins apart?

* more complex to implement, and correctly. and if anything goes wrong it may be difficult to "replay" the events because we don't have historical orderbook API. at any rate, this would have to be an open source script/daemon that multiple people run and cross-check results. and this, too, will be much easier if we deal with snapshots rather than streams of data. not ruling anything out but I'd like to make sure we exhaust the simplest options.

I don't see how we can do meaningful scoring with 1-hour snapshots.  But without a way to replay events, I have no idea what the answer is.

Quote from: roadscape on March 22, 2016, 02:24:45 pm
@cylonmaker2053 20% seems a bit high if we're trying to maintain a tight peg, no? For other markets it might make sense but imho for *stable* coins it should be a tight band.

I think it's beneficial to have a deep order book, especially if black swans are a risk.  So we could reward orders deeper in the book, just not nearly as much.  For example, perhaps x reward within 2% of the peg.  Then maybe 1/5x between 2 and 5%.  And then maybe 1/20x between 5 and 20%, or something along those lines.  This way we encourage both a tight peg and a deep order book.   
 
Quote from: roadscape on March 22, 2016, 02:24:45 pm
Also: should we use the feed price or the center of the spread for P? (My preference would be to not rely on feed price if possible)

I think this has to be the price feed. Otherwise we may reward a tight spread, but around what price?

227
General Discussion / Re: What is better name for "Rate Limited Free Transactions" feature?
« on: March 21, 2016, 04:53:25 pm »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on March 20, 2016, 02:29:54 pm
just call it what it is:  free transactions


if you need more explaining call it:  Free transactions for shareholders



You can call it what you like but people will still call it free transactions so we should to.

I agree 100%.  Free transactions is what it is, and we should call it that.  Anything else will just sound negative or cause unnecessary confusion...aside from possibly adding "for shareholders", which I think would be the only sensible caveat.

228
General Discussion / Re: Beyond Bitcoin (CNX) Hangout w/ Bytemaster Tomorrow @ 10AM EST
« on: March 18, 2016, 01:57:35 pm »
Please ask about status of hosted web wallet.  Thanks.

229
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum price discussion
« on: March 18, 2016, 07:26:18 am »
Ethereum sitting right on major support.  Actually, it's already starting to breach.  If it doesn't bounce soon, it could seriously break down.


230
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 18, 2016, 05:45:09 am »
Quote from: compumatrix on March 18, 2016, 04:35:24 am
Quote from: bytemaster on February 19, 2016, 09:04:16 pm
I would like to propose a new feature for BTS that CNX will provide free of charge if a hard fork is approved.

We would like to allow any market pair to reward users who provide liquidity in that market. The feature would work as follows:

Every order that is filled after being open on the books for at least 10 minutes earns shares a reward pool. The shares earned are proportional to the size of the order filled.

Any user *or* worker can contribute funds to the reward pool. These funds can be denominated in any asset specified by the issuer.

At most once per day users may convert their shares in the reward pool to a pro-rata share of the rewards.

The asset issuer has the ability to enable this feature for any market their asset trades in and to specify the asset used to fund the reward pool.

With this feature Open Ledger *could* pay out OBITS to those who provide liquidity in the OPEN.BTC / BTS market.
BTS can vote for a worker to provide liquidity in the BTS / USD and BTS / CNY markets.

It is possible that trades in the BTS / OPEN.BTC market could earn rewards from both BTS and OBITS *if* shareholders voted to subsidize this market.

Assuming we implement this feature in the BTS / USD market and voters approve workers funding this at a rate of 2.5 BTS / sec (50% of allowed dilution) and the internal exchange had $100,000 of daily volume then users trading on the internal exchange would see a 1% more than they would get by trading off chain. If daily volume was $50,000 then they would see a 2% profit over doing the same trades off-chain.

The impact of this should be a major influx of new traders who can make more money trading on the internal exchange than the external exchange. This added liquidity will dramatically tighten the USD / BTS peg and give shorters much more confidence.

This implementation will require 3 new operations on the blockchain:

1. create_liquidity_reward_pool issuer ASSET FUND_ASSET MARKET_ASSET    ie: openledger OBIT OPEN.BTC OPEN.USD
2. fund_liquidity_reward_pool funding_account AMOUNT FUND_ASSET ASSET MARKET_ASSET
3. claim_liquidity_rewards username AMOUNT FUND_ASSET  ASSET MARKET_ASSET

It will also create a new worker type that can direct BTS to any fund where FUND_ASSET is BTS.



Note: CNX reserves the right to retract this offer or request payment for adding this feature. This proposal does not commit CNX to develop the feature if we decide to pursue other options.

Excellent proposal.

I believe the proposal you've cited is outdated. Since then, if I'm not mistaken bytemaster has shown support for the direction this thread has been going, and has chimed in to state that he believes the reward calculations we'd been discussing should be done off-chain.  Also, one of the things we've concluded on this thread, with some guidance from Nasdaq's liquidity incentive program, is that instead of rewarding trades (which we can't guarantee won't be gamed), we should simply reward liquidity (i.e. placement of orders on the book).  In which case, a share of rewards would not be earned when a fill takes place.  Instead, rewards would be earned based on scores during any given period, with the scores calculated based on how many shares were on the book, for how long, and how close to the price feed.  Hopefully we can build on this and move it toward reality ASAP.


231
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 18, 2016, 04:07:10 am »
Quote from: roadscape on March 17, 2016, 06:45:44 pm
Quote from: tbone on March 17, 2016, 03:23:47 pm
Quote from: xeroc on March 15, 2016, 07:07:09 pm
Absolutely .. the problem is that there are so many things moving and it is next to impossible to get the big picture of what those that discussed in the threads have agreed upon ..
If you put that into a few paragraphs ... we can get this into a nicely formated BSIP quickly!

For multiple reasons, I am not the right person to take this and run with it. So I'm not sure how this matter will move forward since it appears few are taking it seriously.  Which seems odd considering that bootstrapping liquidity (especially for the major fiat BitAssets) seems to be of critical importance.  Or am I missing something?

There's been 12 pages of discussion, it would be nice if someone could sum it up in a single clean document so that it can be easily digested by more people. Even if it was literally just copy-and-paste snippets of notable points.

I saw some important variables were identified (length of time on the books, distance/spread, etc), but have any *reward equations* been proposed? This is the hardest & most important part. What variables do we measure and how do we combine them into a single score.

No equation has been proposed so far.  We have only identified the primary factors.   So we need to come up with values and weightings and combine them into an equation.  Perhaps that's something you can take a stab at?  I've listed the factors again here: 

1. order size
2. time on book
3. distance from price feed
4. bid/ask balance

For the most effective possible application of #4, we need to figure out how to measure which side needs more liquidity (aka the "weak" side) at any given time (i.e. the ask side in a market trending higher, the bid side in a market trending lower) and factor that into the scoring.  However, some have suggested we should leave that for fine-tuning at a later date.  I tend to agree.  So for starters, perhaps we should simply reward equal liquidity to the bid side and to the ask side. 

Also, although orders further away from the price feed have value since they can provide market stability, for starters we should simply reward liquidity at and near the price feed, perhaps using 2 bands, say 1% and 5% around the price feed. 

We also need to start thinking about how much in funding we want to make available to pay rewards.  @Empirical1.2 threw out $100-200 per day as a potential starting point.  That would represent 4-8% of total funds available for worker proposals.  Perhaps we should go with the higher end of that, if politically feasible.

The other question is how much to apply to which markets.  Clearly we should be looking to boost liquidity in the major fiat BitAsset markets, primarily USD and CNY.  But also EUR to a lesser extent.  Perhaps the split between USD and CNY can be roughly according to exchange rate.  And then carve out a % for EUR.  So perhaps 80%/15%/5% for USD, CNY, and EUR respectively.   

Thanks for looking at this, @roadscape.

232
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 17, 2016, 04:01:16 pm »
Quote from: karnal on March 17, 2016, 03:29:06 pm
What would you guys say is stopping most people from creating the bitassets themselves and putting them up for sale?

We need a more coordinated, systematic approach including subsidies for providing liquidity.  Perhaps then market makers would step up to the plate.  Actually, I'm pretty surprised that blocktrades, metaexchange and CCEDK haven't come together to provide some leadership on this matter and work with the community to find solutions.   

233
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 17, 2016, 03:23:47 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on March 15, 2016, 07:07:09 pm
Absolutely .. the problem is that there are so many things moving and it is next to impossible to get the big picture of what those that discussed in the threads have agreed upon ..
If you put that into a few paragraphs ... we can get this into a nicely formated BSIP quickly!

For multiple reasons, I am not the right person to take this and run with it. So I'm not sure how this matter will move forward since it appears few are taking it seriously.  Which seems odd considering that bootstrapping liquidity (especially for the major fiat BitAssets) seems to be of critical importance.  Or am I missing something?

234
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 15, 2016, 06:03:51 pm »
Quote from: emailtooaj on March 15, 2016, 04:34:53 pm
Damn, never thought syscoin would trade higher than BTS lol
That should get some motivation

What do you mean?  Our market cap is more than 5X theirs.

235
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: March 15, 2016, 05:57:07 pm »
@svk:  I've been meaning to comment on the last release and offer additional feedback, just been so busy lately.  But great job with the latest changes to the horizontal order book layout.   Also, the expand and contract buttons on the chart are very helpful.  And the chart timeframes make more sense now (e.g. there was no need for 5s).  Although if it's a relatively easy matter to add them, I would go ahead and add 1m, 2h, 6h, 12h and 1w.  If it's time consuming to add each one, I would add 1m immediately and hold off on the others for now. 

Also with respect to the chart, something has changed where the volume bars now obscure view of the candlesticks.  It was definitely much better before.  And final point about the chart...we once had a crosshair, and now it is just a vertical line.  Can you make it a cross hair again, and have the price of the vertical line's position show on the vertical axis as the crosshair moves?  That would mimic standard behavior. 

By the way, while the horizontal layout is much improved now, the vertical layout has taken a step backwards with the ticker (price history) now pushed further down.  For the very same reasons the price history has been moved immediately below the chart in the horizontal layout, the same should be true on the vertical layout. 

Also, when you click on the order book, it is adding the cumulative available orders and putting a value into the order box, but it's not calculating properly.  Can you take a look at that?

Beyond that, we really need to start working toward having some basic position management.  I mentioned in a previous post that the Open Orders box could be modified to include a Current Positions view.  So the box could have 2 tabs for the user to choose between.  The tab headers could include the number of items in the list like below.  Also, Open Positions could show the P/L (% gain or loss) for each position.  And each position could be hyperlinked so the user can click to load that market into the current view in order to assess the situation and/or close out or add to their position.

|  Open Orders (1)    |   Current Positions (5)  |

Finally, there is still some strange behavior with the Find Markets tab.  For example, if I enter "OPEN.EUR", it returns the OPEN.EUR pairs with BTS, BTC, USD, CNY...but not EUR.  Do you know why that is? 


236
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 15, 2016, 05:04:17 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on March 15, 2016, 02:21:56 pm
Quote from: tbone on March 15, 2016, 02:07:46 pm
Quote from: xeroc on March 11, 2016, 12:15:34 pm
The best thing to approach CNX is probably to write down a specification to have them get the picture quickyl!

@xeroc, is this something you can help with?  I am offering a 10,000 BTS bounty for the worker proposal.
I haven't followed the topic closely but I can surely help you bring content into a proper format .. I just don't currently find the time to re-read the threads about this topic

Considering the overwhelming importance of getting liquidity going, isn't this a matter that the committee should get more involved with? 


237
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 15, 2016, 02:07:46 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on March 11, 2016, 12:15:34 pm
The best thing to approach CNX is probably to write down a specification to have them get the picture quickyl!

@xeroc, is this something you can help with?  I am offering a 10,000 BTS bounty for the worker proposal.

238
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 14, 2016, 11:31:11 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on March 14, 2016, 07:45:20 pm
Total shit price action... BTS has no "stickiness" to the upside, only to the downside.  All it does is spike and get dumped on by whales.  Only way to make money long is to watch the charts and pray you are around when there is the 1 day pump.

What's your deal, man?  We bottomed out in early January at .000004 and have been in a nice, steady uptrend (yellow channel) since then. A few days ago we had a nice catalyst, busted out of the 2-month uptrend, and hit the top of a longer term downtrend (red channel).  Now we've pulled back and so far seem to have found support at previous resistance.  Sooner or later we'll have another go at the top of the larger downtrend channel.  Once we break through that -- Katie, bar the door. 

By the way, aren't you a trader?  You sure don't act like it.  Unless you're just trying to scare people so you can buy as low as possible.  Without a doubt, there are people here who play that game. 


239
General Discussion / Re: OPENPOS :: Smartcoins Point Of Sale (POS) & BitShares Wallet for Android/iPhone
« on: March 13, 2016, 03:04:42 pm »
Quote from: kenCode on March 13, 2016, 07:21:13 am
The BitShares Wallet v1.0.1 for Android (~25MB) has now been submitted successfully to:
The BitShares Wallet v1.0.1 for iOS and Windows Mobile (as you can see above) is in progress, just need to get the brainkey and UI done for those platforms now. We're getting close..

Hey @kenCode, I thought the version you submitted on 3/7 was 1.0.1. 

240
General Discussion / Re: Thank you and final report, re: sponsorship
« on: March 12, 2016, 04:35:43 am »
Perhaps we should do another round of sponsorship once we have the hosted web wallet up and running, with usable stealth features and 2FA.  I would be happy to kick in for that again.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 43

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 20 queries.