Arbitrage opportunities present themselves in inefficient markets. We're not trying to create inefficient markets. There shouldn't be arbitrage opportunities.

Aren't all markets inefficient without arbitrage?

Don't forex brokers use reverse notation compared to bitshares? I.e. BTS/USD means USD per BTS in forex terms and BTS per USD in bitshares?

Forex and general bitcoin exchanges list markets like this:

base quote

sometimes

base / quote

For some reason, bitshares has

base : quote

but at least they're the same way around.

The base and counter currencies should be clearly stated everywhere next to the price.

Absolutely not. That is very confusing. It is obvious what market you're in, all you need to know are amounts (with symbol) and prices (with symbol).

Can we have it in the webwallet?

I don't think MUSE has a web wallet? We could integrate into their lite wallet, of course

Even if you don't agree with my analysis for the cause of the premium, you must acknowledge that it was designed to trade at a premium. I think this is suboptimal.

Quote from: monsterer on November 26, 2015, 09:34:26 am

I will try and make this happen

Thanks in advance.   
Easy integration of BitShares ecosystem with C# applications can bring us additional value.

https://github.com/wildbunny/c-graphene-api

You're welcome

Where is the reward in your logic? If I buy bitUSD, I don't get any reward, if I borrow bitUSD, I may get a reward depending on market sentiments ..

If I buy bitUSD I get rewarded if the price of BTS goes down. If the price goes up, I have opportunity cost. If I borrow bitUSD and the price of BTS goes down, I can close at a profit. If the price goes up, I get margin called eventually, which is realised cost.

In the end, you want to answer this question to your self:
Do you want to incentivize customers moving their funds into a stable system?
Do you want to incentivize merchants to use the system?
Or do you want to equally incentivize both parties?

Why would you want to chose a system which benefits any one participant. Such a system is a poorer design than one which is equal to all participants.

You believe because one side gets margin-called and has to actively maintain collateral that that creates a premium.  I don't believe that. 

With respect, you're wrong. I can prove it:

Lets call the risk of getting margin called Rm and the risk of a black swan Rb. Now, each of these risks has a probability associated with it (call them Pm and Pb)... Even if they are very difficult to quantify, we can say with certainty that Pm > Pb at all times.

Equilibrium price in the bitUSD market is the feed price. When I borrow bitUSD from the market I take on Rm. When I buy bitUSD from the market I take on Rb. If I borrow bitUSD and then sell it at the feed price, I'm saying Rm == Rb, which is obviously a false assumption. If we know that Pm>Pb at all times, then as a rational trader I must sell by borrowed bitUSD greater than the feed price, to make sure I satisfy Pm>Pb.