Have all the exchanges been notified?

I've also got a wallet set up at https://dele-puppy.com or wss://dele-puppy.com/ws  The faucet doesn't seem to be giving referrers the proper percent so please don't use it to refer new users, as you may not get paid.

Quote from: abit on February 12, 2016, 02:43:55 am

Quote from: Thom on February 12, 2016, 01:29:24 am

This thread has exploded in just one day!

Haven't had the time to read it all to catch up, but I recall one comment to the effect: "How do we set the price of BTS if it isn't sold anywhere else than our DEX?

Perhaps an experiment could be setup to use the current ratio of BTS to bitUSD as a starting point, and set the size of the total bitUSD as a fixed quantity, but that wouldn't allow the "M1" to expand to fit the volume of currency exchange to support a dynamic economy.

This does sound like a  v e r y  novel & innovative idea, very unique. It will indeed be extremely interesting to see how it evolves.

Correct. When [quantity of gold] * [price of gold] is not enough to support M1, the governments abandoned Gold Standard, but not let the price of gold to the moon. How about BTS?

A number of years ago I heard Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media interview Gene O'Dening about the history of money and it was then I realized why a gold standard wouldn't work if the rate of gold production was slower than the rate of economic expansion. M1 and GDP need to be directly correlated. M1 > GDP = inflation,  and M1 < GDP = deflation. Granted it's a simplistic view but generally correct. Start talking about what constitutes GDP and things get complicated pretty fast.

Please read or listen to "what is money" by  Bastiat.

If you have please tell me why an ever expanding money supply is at all necessary.

Tony.  Ill  respond to your counter arguments tomorrow.  I still think there is a possible negative feedback loop.  I'm still hoping I'm wrong.

Under this proposed system what would happen in cases of high demand for bts, and cases of low demand for bts.  I think a couple of thought experiments are in order.

First of all high demand for bts.  Since no one can buy bts directly, they will have to buy bitassets.  As there are more people wanting to buy than to sell the price of these bitassets will rise.  If I really want into bts, but no one is offering a bitusd for $1 of fiat then I might pay $1.10 at some price there will be a seller.  Once I purchase my bitusd I will transfer it to my wallet, and purchase bts with it.  Once again we will assume that there are more people wanting to purchase bts with bitsud internally.  My purchase will push the price of bts vs bitusd up.  Thus a rising of bts price should produce shortages of bitusd for sale on external exchanges, and gluts of bitusd for sale internally. 

How would it work under low demand for bts.  Once again no one can sell their bts directly.  Internally we can assume that there will be more bts for sale and less bitusd for sale.  The price of bts in relation to bitUSD will decline, and the collateral underlying all bitusd will go down in value.  Once I have my bitusd I will transfer it to an external exchange and attempt to trade it for fiat.  We can once again assume that there will be more bitusd for sale on the external exchange and less fiat to purchase it.  This will naturally depress the price of bitUSD in relation to fiat.  This will result in a shortage of bitusd internally and a glut of bitusd externally.  If the price of bts internally falls far enough then shorters will become under collateralized.  They will either add to their collateral, attempt to purchase bitusd to close their short, or get margin called.  If they attempt to purchase bitusd internally to close their position or are margin called this will further add to the internal shortage of bitusd and further reduce the price of bts in relation.  If the price falls far enough then there will be massive buy orders in the internal bitusd market, but the rational decision for most users will not be to sell their bitusd internally for the depreciating bts.  It will be to sell their bitusd externally for fiat.  If conditions get bad enough then many users will be willing to sell their bitusd externally for fiat at a discount.  This will erode confidence in the system, and further the decline.

This may be a worst case scenario, but I think it is likely to happen at some point.  We have already seen the price of bts decline by 50% in a day or two.  the current incarnation survived to lick its wounds.  I am not sure that this new version would.  In short I would say that my argument is that attempting to make entry and exit entirely through market pegged assets will hinder the peg, and increase the fragility of the entire system.

I hope this wall of text wasn't too hard to read.  If you disagree with any of my conclusions please let me know. 

I don't think the price of bitUSD (on the external market) would be consistent enough.  If bitUSD is in high demand then the price will be very high, and if bitUSD is in low demand then the price will be very low.  Because this buy and sell pressure will be caused by people entering or exiting the market I think there will be a tendency for much greater swings (compared to external price of USD) than today.  If people get scared they will sell at a loss which will further increase the selling pressure.  This could reduce the price of bitUSD to a real world price that would be hard to recover from.

I would love to be proven wrong on this, as your idea is a graceful solution to many of our problems. 

I may also just not understand why you are not concerned with price of bitUSD on external exchanges.

Quote from: fuzzy on February 10, 2016, 07:59:47 pm

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 10, 2016, 05:30:29 pm

All the polls I see on this forum have poorly worded options. I know this one is a jokey one but all the others I see don't offer enough choice or steer the answer with their wording.

If you are gonna do a poll try and make so it can represent people opinions well.

not all of them, and since when is it that we use "other people are doing it" as a legitimate excuse to consider it a means of validating ANYTHING? 
maybe it is my training but i hate polls that are obviously skewed.

also, just for satan to recognize...when you let people view results  BEFORE voting you obfuscate the truth...which means i will not oarticipate in this poll-- even if there may be valid concerns. until bitcoinsatan can put together a post that seeks to measure reality, i will sit back and lol at the irony of this situation.

See BM's thread where he shared the blog post. This seems to be just an ironic thread because apparently every idea BM has in the past has been classified as stupid by many shareholders and he gets attacked because of just sharing an idea with fear he actually pursues that idea and damages BitShares...

This is just too funny guys.  I for one am taking this sock puppets poll very very seriously. 

Yes... that sounds good in itself.. but it's not what puppies is looking for. I think he sees an opportunity for fees to kick in if you go above your limit, not just get kicked back.

I would like both Data.  I want to see LTM remain an attractive value add.  Either one of the options BM mentioned should work.  I was thinking more of option 2 myself, but that seems like it would require us to raise the balance requirements for non LTM users.  Option 1 gets around that, but might not be enough of a benefit for LTM.

The second thing I would like is the ability to still be able to transact by paying a fee, even if I have used up all of my coin days.  Imagine that you are putting in bids on ebay for that thing you really really need to have, and the auction is about to expire, and you could put in the winning bid, but you used up all of your coin days placing previous bids.  At that point it may be worth $0.16 or more to you to be able to place that final bid.  I think we should retain the option.

I wanted to keep this discussion in the correct thread, but it is largely inspired by the following quote from the committee fee discussion thread.

I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.

They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1.  What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100.  Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

If forex clients would be happy with a $1 flat fee to trade in our markets then I think MT4 integration could be funded with a fee backed asset.  Lets assume for the sake of argument that development and licensing would cost $250,000.  You could attempt to fund that with a multi sig owned UIA.  Set a giant sell wall at $10.00 per share or whatever.  If the funds are not raised within a certain cutoff period, put up a giant buy wall at $10.00.  You could do this in the USD market, or just adjust it frequently in the BTS market.  Even with having to adjust it, BTS might be better due to current liquidity.  You could even accept BTC through meta or blocktrades. 

Once enough money is raised development begins, and this uia is converted 1 to 1 to the new FBA.  If we had a base limit order create fee roughly 3 times what it currently is, or $0.10 then the FBA would still be able to take in $0.90 per trade.  If the system proves to be popular we could probably even raise the fee over $1. 

Someone with knowledge of this industry needs to do more than spitball a rough estimate of cost.  Who is willing to sell a license.  How much?  What would be the regulatory aspects?  How could we protect the license? 

Then hit up CNX or abit or another dev, and get a quote on development cost.  Be very open on the cut that you are taking yourself for putting this together.

Once we have a number we can start talking about when and how we would acquire users, how many trades on average we expect them to make.  From there we can extrapolate fee requirements.

Depending on all of the factors above, I think this could be a very lucrative use of a persons time.  If the price is right I would invest in the FBA, and I am sure some whales would be interested as well.