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-s3Some 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.