61
General Discussion / Re: UIA Giveaway - BRICS
« on: December 09, 2015, 01:26:33 am »
My account is bts: funny-bear
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.
62
General Discussion / Re: Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)
« on: December 08, 2015, 02:54:57 pm »100k bts is the cost for implementing the feature.
It is NOT the votes needed to be approved.
Okay, got it.
He made it sound like the hard fork plan will go through without stakeholder's voting, so I had to ask.
Thank you.
63
General Discussion / Re: Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)
« on: December 08, 2015, 02:00:55 pm »
In the worker proposal, it says "If the proposal gets funded then it will be assumed that the required hardfork has been approved by stakeholders and development will compense."
What kind of rule is that? 100000BTS can be paid by one person, and a hard fork gets approved just like that by getting funded? That's so centralized.
95% of the people might not be even aware of this thread.
What kind of rule is that? 100000BTS can be paid by one person, and a hard fork gets approved just like that by getting funded? That's so centralized.
95% of the people might not be even aware of this thread.
64
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 08, 2015, 04:22:17 am »Quote
#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program.
In my opinion, redistributing percentage-based BTS fees to the referral program should only be done for SmartCoin/BTS pairs but not for UIA/BTS pairs. For SmartCoin/BTS pairs, the committee account should have control over the market fee rate of BTS, and should be able to alter it when the consensus changes. For UIA/BTS pairs, the UIA issuer should have control over the market fee rate of BTS from the update assets page, not the commitee account. It should be designed so that the market fee made in BTS will flow directly into the UIA issuer's fee pool.
Quote
However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator). I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program.
I think you need to consider who takes the most risk in the equation. I believe the biggest risk taker is the UIA issuer (who is also the market maker), so the percentage-based fee in BTS should not be split between the referral program and the UIA issuer. The BTS fee one makes in the UIA/BTS market should fully belong to the UIA issuer. Each market should be seen as its own mini business, right? Then, why split profit with the referral program? Do that with SmartCoin, not UIA. Network is already charging 10BTS from the fee pool anyways, so BitShares as a DAC should already be sustainable. Don't let the community become more greedy by milking profit from the UIA issuer.
Quote
This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program.
If you let the committee decide on the market fee, UIA issuer cannot do business as they desire. Let me give you an example.
What if you want to set 0.2% market fee but the consensus says 0.4%? What if you want to hold a "no market fee campaign" for the next two month but the consensus says 0.2% market fee? Then, UIA issuer cannot do business here in BitShares!
Letting the committee have control over BTS market fee on "global level" is not feasible for business.
65
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 07, 2015, 12:57:50 pm »
Please listen to this week's BeyondBitcoin hangout, bytemaster's comment from 14:21 to 17:55, because it's really really important.
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-04-2015-s3
Some people might not see it, but I believe @bytemaster is talking about something really important here. The topic changed to another subject after bytemaster asked for feedback, but I think we need to keep coming back to this topic over and over again.
I'm a trader myself and also a market maker of my own UIA, so I exactly know what bytemaster is stating here.
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
UIA issuer has to jumpstart their own asset by performing market making themselves in the beginning even at a loss, but if market makers cannot earn any percentage fee from both buy and a sell, you will not be calling that "incentivizing market makers." In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eventually, a small-sized UIA issuer will have a hard time keeping up with creating a buy wall if they cannot receive any percentage-based market fees in BTS.
Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
BTS is owned by the null-account, so UIA issuer can't do anything about it, even when the community makes a mistake. Have you thought from an UIA issuer's point of view? What if the community comes up with a "stupid" market fee value? That will affect the UIA issuer's game and UIA issuer has no control over it.
I think BTS should be detached from the null-account, and market fee for BTS should be configurable per UIA level by the UIA issuer, and it should allow percentage based market fee that flows directly (no vesting) into the UIA issuer's Fee pool. That's what it means to promote an asset individually and incentivize the market makers.
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-04-2015-s3
Some people might not see it, but I believe @bytemaster is talking about something really important here. The topic changed to another subject after bytemaster asked for feedback, but I think we need to keep coming back to this topic over and over again.
I'm a trader myself and also a market maker of my own UIA, so I exactly know what bytemaster is stating here.
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
UIA issuer has to jumpstart their own asset by performing market making themselves in the beginning even at a loss, but if market makers cannot earn any percentage fee from both buy and a sell, you will not be calling that "incentivizing market makers." In fact, it's the exact opposite. Eventually, a small-sized UIA issuer will have a hard time keeping up with creating a buy wall if they cannot receive any percentage-based market fees in BTS.
Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
BTS is owned by the null-account, so UIA issuer can't do anything about it, even when the community makes a mistake. Have you thought from an UIA issuer's point of view? What if the community comes up with a "stupid" market fee value? That will affect the UIA issuer's game and UIA issuer has no control over it.
I think BTS should be detached from the null-account, and market fee for BTS should be configurable per UIA level by the UIA issuer, and it should allow percentage based market fee that flows directly (no vesting) into the UIA issuer's Fee pool. That's what it means to promote an asset individually and incentivize the market makers.
66
Technical Support / Question about the workflow of Worker Proposal
« on: December 06, 2015, 11:30:27 am »
Hi All,
I am new to the worker proposal part of BitShares, and I am currently trying to understand the concept and the workflow of a worker proposal.
I am trying to create a "beginner's manual" on my blog page so that anybody can understand.
Can you kindly help advising on the parts I still don't understand?
-------------------------
The Main Concept of Worker Proposal:
Worker is a person or a company that can contribute services to BitShares, and a salary in return.
Worker makes proposal to provide services, such as implementing a new function to BitShares as hardfork.
Three Steps of Worker Proposal:
A. Proposer needs to first find out the consensus of the community, meaning one needs to find out if the community wants to implement such function or not in the first place
B. If enough people vote YES to the project, now you must get proper funding to initiate the project.
C. Worker receive salary while working on the project, until the project is fully completed.
-----------------------------
My questions are below.
1. I understand that Step A currently requires voting through a CLI wallet. Would this be implemented on GUI in the near future?
2. If a person is configuring a proxy to vote on behalf of that person, where can that person check if the proxy voted yes or no?
3. I'm still unclear on step B. Once you earn enough "YES" votes on step A, you now know that the community wants to go ahead with your worker proposal. Now, how do you initiate the funding process, meaning how do you start receiving the crowdfunding for this worker proposal?
4. If you need $5000 to complete a project, but you received $15000 funding in total, how does the excess $10000 get returned to the patrons?
I am new to the worker proposal part of BitShares, and I am currently trying to understand the concept and the workflow of a worker proposal.
I am trying to create a "beginner's manual" on my blog page so that anybody can understand.
Can you kindly help advising on the parts I still don't understand?
-------------------------
The Main Concept of Worker Proposal:
Worker is a person or a company that can contribute services to BitShares, and a salary in return.
Worker makes proposal to provide services, such as implementing a new function to BitShares as hardfork.
Three Steps of Worker Proposal:
A. Proposer needs to first find out the consensus of the community, meaning one needs to find out if the community wants to implement such function or not in the first place
B. If enough people vote YES to the project, now you must get proper funding to initiate the project.
C. Worker receive salary while working on the project, until the project is fully completed.
-----------------------------
My questions are below.
1. I understand that Step A currently requires voting through a CLI wallet. Would this be implemented on GUI in the near future?
2. If a person is configuring a proxy to vote on behalf of that person, where can that person check if the proxy voted yes or no?
3. I'm still unclear on step B. Once you earn enough "YES" votes on step A, you now know that the community wants to go ahead with your worker proposal. Now, how do you initiate the funding process, meaning how do you start receiving the crowdfunding for this worker proposal?
4. If you need $5000 to complete a project, but you received $15000 funding in total, how does the excess $10000 get returned to the patrons?
67
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 06, 2015, 06:04:47 am »
I think you are talking about network fee for placing an order, while I'm talking about both network fee for placing order and market fee for a fill.
CCEDK OBITS/BTS Market
Centralized exchange will charge X% market fee from both the buyer and seller in the receiving asset. It looks like CCEDK has their market fee configured to 0.2%. So, if someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays 4 BTS to CCEDK, and buyer pays 0.2 OBITS to CCEDK. If someone sells 10000 OBITS, seller pays 400 BTS to CCEDK and buyer pays 20 OBITS to CCEDK.
Openledger OBITS/BTS Market
Let's say that issuer of OBITS configures 0.2% market fee on Openledger. Let's also say that core exchange rate is set to 20BTS/OBITS. If someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays "10BTS worth of OBITS" as network fee (that is 0.5 OBITS) when placing the order and no fee for a fill. Buyer pays "10BTS as network fee" when placing the order and on top of that, they will also pay 0.2 OBITS to the UIA issuer when order gets filled.
So, buyer of UIA pays two times, once when placing order and again when receiving the UIA.
Don't you think UIA seller should also pay two times, once when placing order and again when receiving BTS?
In the current system, the UIA issuer can only charge market fee to the buyer, but can only receive "10 BTS worth of OBITS" from the seller, and that is the limit.
On the centralized exchange, there is no limit because transaction fee is based on buyer's and seller's traded volume.
That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.
CCEDK OBITS/BTS Market
Centralized exchange will charge X% market fee from both the buyer and seller in the receiving asset. It looks like CCEDK has their market fee configured to 0.2%. So, if someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays 4 BTS to CCEDK, and buyer pays 0.2 OBITS to CCEDK. If someone sells 10000 OBITS, seller pays 400 BTS to CCEDK and buyer pays 20 OBITS to CCEDK.
Openledger OBITS/BTS Market
Let's say that issuer of OBITS configures 0.2% market fee on Openledger. Let's also say that core exchange rate is set to 20BTS/OBITS. If someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays "10BTS worth of OBITS" as network fee (that is 0.5 OBITS) when placing the order and no fee for a fill. Buyer pays "10BTS as network fee" when placing the order and on top of that, they will also pay 0.2 OBITS to the UIA issuer when order gets filled.
So, buyer of UIA pays two times, once when placing order and again when receiving the UIA.
Don't you think UIA seller should also pay two times, once when placing order and again when receiving BTS?
In the current system, the UIA issuer can only charge market fee to the buyer, but can only receive "10 BTS worth of OBITS" from the seller, and that is the limit.
On the centralized exchange, there is no limit because transaction fee is based on buyer's and seller's traded volume.
That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.
68
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 06, 2015, 01:20:13 am »
It's not the same as the centralized exchange at all. I just explained the difference of design between CCEDK and Openledger in my previous response.
I'm surprised to see that the community doesn't see this as a problematic design.
You guys keep bringing up UIA/UIA pairs, but that's not my point.
I'm only talking about UIA/BTS pair and nothing else. I'm simply proposing that UIA issuer should be allowed to collect BTS when somebody sells your UIA for BTS.
As BTS is the key currency in BitShares, it shouldn't be treated the same way as other UIA/UIA pairs or UIA/Smartcoin pairs.
Look below.
CCEDK charges the seller 4 BTS when trying to sell 100 OBITS at price 20BTS/OBITS. You can't do this on Openledger. That's the problem.
I'm surprised to see that the community doesn't see this as a problematic design.
You guys keep bringing up UIA/UIA pairs, but that's not my point.
I'm only talking about UIA/BTS pair and nothing else. I'm simply proposing that UIA issuer should be allowed to collect BTS when somebody sells your UIA for BTS.
As BTS is the key currency in BitShares, it shouldn't be treated the same way as other UIA/UIA pairs or UIA/Smartcoin pairs.
Look below.
CCEDK charges the seller 4 BTS when trying to sell 100 OBITS at price 20BTS/OBITS. You can't do this on Openledger. That's the problem.
69
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 05, 2015, 03:44:00 pm »For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.
Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.
70
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:54:40 am »
@bytemaster ,
After reading your comment on the other thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20411.0.html) and your mention about OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC, I think I know what you are trying to say.
I think you are trying to say that you as a UIA issuer only deserves to charge market fee when somebody tries to "buy" YourUIA, and since BTS is not your personal asset, you don't have the right to charge market fee in BTS even when somebody tries to "sell" YourUIA for BTS.
If that is what you are trying to say, I would like to disagree to that.
I think that if the trading pair is YourUIA/BTS, and only when the trading pair is YourUIA against BTS, you as an UIA Issuer should be allowed to charge BTS as a market fee for someone selling YourUIA for BTS, because BTS is the "key currency" in BItShares and should be treated different from trading YourUIA versus smartcoins or another UIA.
Think like this. Somebody is dumping YourUIA for BTS, trying to lower the value of YourUIA. Don't you think it's legitimate for UIA issuer to charge a market fee in BTS when they do that?
After reading your comment on the other thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20411.0.html) and your mention about OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC, I think I know what you are trying to say.
I think you are trying to say that you as a UIA issuer only deserves to charge market fee when somebody tries to "buy" YourUIA, and since BTS is not your personal asset, you don't have the right to charge market fee in BTS even when somebody tries to "sell" YourUIA for BTS.
If that is what you are trying to say, I would like to disagree to that.
I think that if the trading pair is YourUIA/BTS, and only when the trading pair is YourUIA against BTS, you as an UIA Issuer should be allowed to charge BTS as a market fee for someone selling YourUIA for BTS, because BTS is the "key currency" in BItShares and should be treated different from trading YourUIA versus smartcoins or another UIA.
Think like this. Somebody is dumping YourUIA for BTS, trying to lower the value of YourUIA. Don't you think it's legitimate for UIA issuer to charge a market fee in BTS when they do that?
71
General Discussion / Re: Question about Market Fee for UIA/UIA Market
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:33:45 am »You pay the fee upon receiving an asset. One side will pay 0.3% the other will pay 0.1%.
Ah, that sounds legit.
If I have MyUIA, and if want to trade it for YourUIA, I will pay a 0.3% fee from the receiving asset (YourUIA) because you are setting 0.3% market fee on your UIA.
If you have YourUIA, and if want to trade it for MyUIA, you will have to pay a 0.1% fee from the receiving asset (MyUIA) because I am setting 0.1% market fee on my UIA.
Thank you for the clarification.
72
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 04, 2015, 06:46:51 pm »It isn't faulty. Imagine trading OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC who should get the fees when those two assets trade?
bytemaster,
Actually, I'm asking that very question in another thread below so please save that for the other thread.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20411.0.html
---------------------------------
Here, I am talking about UIA/BTS market, not the UIA/UIA market.
I think I should bring up an example, which should make it more clear.
CCEDK has a trading pair OBITS/BTS on its exchange.
https://www.ccedk.com/obits-bts
If you trade through CCEDK, you pay a market fee in "OBITS" when buying "OBITS." When you sell OBITS for BTS, you pay a market fee in "BTS." So CCEDK gets to charge market fee for both buyers and sellers.
However, in Openledger, it doesn't work that way.
Although the market fee for OBITS is currently set to 0% at this time, let's say market fee is configured for the sake of this argument.
In BitShares UIA, I found out that one only pays the market fee when buying OBITS, but one does NOT need to pay the market fee when selling OBITS for BTS. Why is BitShares designed in such a way? This design simply makes BitShares inferior compared to the centralized exchanges because the UIA issuer can only charge the buyers.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "faulty", but at least this design makes BitShares much less competitive. What is your intention behind this design?
73
General Discussion / Re: Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 04, 2015, 03:59:51 pm »If exchanges use exchange.bts/exchange.fiat pairs then should be no problem.However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
That would indeed be suboptimal. Can anyone confirm this is the design?
If this *is* the design, how can you expect existing exchanges to accept 50% less revenue when onboarding with bitshares?
I was not talking about Smartcoins though. I'm talking about the faulty market fee structure of the current UIA/BTS market.
74
General Discussion / Re: Plans to implement white background (day mode)?
« on: December 04, 2015, 02:53:29 pm »
Thanks all for pushing this forward!
75
General Discussion / Problematic Market fee structure on the UIA/BTS Market
« on: December 04, 2015, 02:09:57 pm »
I performed some testing of market fees on UIA/BTS market.
I found out that setting market fee on "update asset" page will only allow the UIA issuer to collect a configured percentage of UIA from the trader who will be "receiving UIA" (a.k.a. UIA buyers) when a trade takes place.
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
This result was unexpected because I thought that one of the goals of the BitShares community was to onboard existing external exchanges and encourage them to use BitShares as their trading engine. If you allow external exchanges to only collect market fee from the UIA buyers, they will lose half of their revenue streams because they cannot collect BTS from the UIA seller. They will rather keep using their own system because their system already allows them to collect market fee from both sides.
That is why I believe that the current market fee structure on BitShares is faulty. Let me know what you think.
I found out that setting market fee on "update asset" page will only allow the UIA issuer to collect a configured percentage of UIA from the trader who will be "receiving UIA" (a.k.a. UIA buyers) when a trade takes place.
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
This result was unexpected because I thought that one of the goals of the BitShares community was to onboard existing external exchanges and encourage them to use BitShares as their trading engine. If you allow external exchanges to only collect market fee from the UIA buyers, they will lose half of their revenue streams because they cannot collect BTS from the UIA seller. They will rather keep using their own system because their system already allows them to collect market fee from both sides.
That is why I believe that the current market fee structure on BitShares is faulty. Let me know what you think.
