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.
interest-like dividend; shareholders dividend; development fund; reserve fund; *X fund (reserved for something we might come up in the future)Consider witness pay please.
Each of those 4 (the % going to them) are adjustable by the comittie (or direct vote by stakeholders...one day)
Staring parameters(while dShares is young - we do not have much fees and we still have some dev,funds from the kick-starter)
interest-like dividend 1/5; shareholders dividend 4/5; development fund 0%; reserve fund 0%; *X fund 0%
I'm saying zero fee + other encouragement.BM ever said in a post that "taker pay maker" will actually add an invisible but existed spread to the market, if the payment is high, everybody will try to be the maker, result in high and tight bid/ask walls but little volume. What is said in this thread is to encourage maker but not punish taker, so better liquidity.
Only true if you increase the trade fee, I'm saying just divert part of the existing fee.
Why can't the taker just pay the maker directly some portion of the fees? That pretty much prevents the system being gamble, while incentivising liquidity.BM ever said in a post that "taker pay maker" will actually add an invisible but existed spread to the market, if the payment is high, everybody will try to be the maker, result in high and tight bid/ask walls but little volume. What is said in this thread is to encourage maker but not punish taker, so better liquidity.
@tonyk I really like your idea but I don't think a competing fork with almost identical sounding features will be well received by the crypto community - they won't understand it. I suggested before going after a clearly different feature set (targeting mt4) and I still think that will be much better received.I think you're welcome by @tonyk and maybe you'll get some development fund in return and maybe some FBA-style long term income, if you can provide a mt4 plugin which works with the new chain. In this way the product get benefited as well. Hope others to do something is always easy.
If you move forward with your plan as is, it will fragment the bitshares community which is a lose lose situation for everybody.
Slow maturation of the share dropI don't think those shares should be use as collateral if don't want them to be sold early. If the position get margin called, the result is same as sold.
Even less married to this part, but might be highly beneficial [feedback please]
what else? I do not know, but should be more... I will save the next post just in case.
The share-drop on BTS matures slowly (coin-days approach for say 3 years) This is about only the audibility to sell those dShares. For all other purposes - voting, use as collateral, getting credit toward fees, receiving dividends those are absolutely active/normal shares
"maximum_authority_membership": 10,
"max_authority_depth": 2,
So if adopt one-layer-multi-sig account, the account can have at most 10 signers. If adopt 2-layer-multi-sig account, the account can have 100 signers.
You were playing fire IMO.@svk Don't deploy the new code before the hard fork date, otherwise it will perhaps cause network forking since it's not sure that all witnesses are updated before that date.
I think the change is not dangerous as long as you keep the extensions empty. (Actually I updated my votes yesterday using the new release, after discovering the bug...)
And also CNX. Maybe I'm too conservative.I'd like to say: don't waste time on that guy. Most of his posts are same, no matter what the OPs are talking about.
My man
It's a double-edged sword.It's not too good if one winner wins all prizes.
Some improvements:
* to be qualify for reward, the price should be within say 3% of feed price
* when distributing the reward, weight by for example duration*quantity but not by quantity only (what if a whale places orders every block? so a minimum duration is needed? if 10 minutes is too long, how about 1 minute?)
* weight by log(quantity) instead of quantity so smaller participants will earn relatively more rewards than whales (decreasing edge effect). (but what if a whale places thousands of orders?)
Thoughts?
//update: edited the 2nd rule
3% of feed price - it should be set by market forces, not by comitee. too small and it wont work,
too big and it is useless.
why small participants should earn more ? give more to the poor ?
As far as I can see, creation of bitBTS would be practical way of doing the transition smoothly. Exchanges could change their BTS stack to bitBTS, which their customers could transfer to themselves freely. Customers of exchanges wouldn't lose anything because they have already given up a possibility to vote by storing their BTS in the exchange. Value of their holdings would remain same, because bitBTS is naturally backed with 100 % of BTS and could be force settled anytime in the Bitshares blockchain. Tonyk, any thoughts on this?If I understood correctly, force settlement feature won't exist in tonyk's new chain, since it's against the market rules.
I also think time duration requirement is not so important. Longer duration means more risks, shorter duration + higher frequency would be more acceptable by market makers.It's not too good if one winner wins all prizes.
Some improvements:
* to be qualify for reward, the price should be within say 3% of feed price
* when distributing the reward, weight by for example duration*quantity but not by quantity only (what if a whale places orders every block? so a minimum duration is needed? if 10 minutes is too long, how about 1 minute?)
* weight by log(quantity) instead of quantity so smaller participants will earn relatively more rewards than whales (decreasing edge effect). (but what if a whale places thousands of orders?)
Thoughts?
//update: edited the 2nd rule
very good ideas. i like the log weighting, not too excited about any time duration requirement since we could have far more active markets in the future (which we should all plan for now), and i def like the radius from feed price concept to encourage higher value liquidity on the margin.
