The trading volume of USD:BTC over the last 24hrs is actually zero as it is on most days.
I like some of the ideas you suggested.. however this market you mentions has been made this way because the premium from what I understand is in the neighbourhood of 40% from market rate. Someone claimed to have done that to lock up the market so that they could profit from it.
Free market sure.. but when traders take advantage of the illquid markets and push the premiums far beyond any reasonable amount, they are effectively killing it. They poison the supply and thus destroy the demand.
I'm not a trader... but I have heard it time and again from people that the market pegs are so far off that they simply do not want to use smartcoins because it will cost too much.
People WANT to... but when they get into the market and see premiums that reach 10% plus.. it no longer makes sense to use them for their purpose, which is to be a stable reserve. Not at that premium. Utility is destroyed.
If you want to see more liquidity.. keep the premium within 3%. Sure you are not going to see massive gains on a few trade.. but smaller ones on a whole lot more.
All the other solutions where the system is introducing more money is effectively going to just give the same players who have set the premium too high to buy up any cheaper amounts and keep setting them higher isn't it? Then we are back to where people simply will not pay the premium and the market remains illiquid aren't we? Or is there something I am missing... again I am not a trader.
I think traders have to decide by their trades if they want to support the markets or not by the premiums they are setting. Otherwise we can see the result. Again though.. this is what it seems from someone who isn't a trader.. if I a missing something let me know.
Aside from this.. the current markets as released in 2.0 I don't believe were meant to operate this way. Bond markets were suppose to be part of the equation for the launch of 2.0. Since we don't have that though we need to look at other options. I think some of the recent ideas are pretty decent..
N - same problem only bigger, but we are about to do a run anyways and we will see what happens - The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%
N - systemically impossible - Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.
N - free market for gateways.. do we hire goons to enforce?
- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.
Y - I already have started working on this - Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity
Y - An easy enhancement - Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX
Y - Acquisition is one way to get customers, but a deal like that can take a long time, and the cost of conversion tremendous - Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.
N - Invites are ok though.. paying alts would produce diminished returns and do nothing for the target markets - Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.
Akado concurred with the whole limited markets in GUI idea too. I don't think they need to be 100% limited, but they can be made more prominent... like on ohh.. say.. THEDEX!