Quote from: yvv on February 03, 2016, 12:28:30 am

No. Make it opposite, 95% to network, 5% to referral.

personally I can accept less than 10% to referral.
if somebody have a great contribution to marketing, committee can award them from network's income

I agree. All it takes is one angry BTS shareholder to kill the referral system. Businesses should not rely on it, and we should not make decisions based off of catering to businesses that rely on it.

How to Kill Referral Businesses:
Charlie wants the referral business to die because he thinks the inflated fees are bad for the future of Bitshares. He sets up a business that works like the rakeback business in poker [1]. Anyone that signs up under him, he gives 100% of the fees back to them that he earns. It costs him very little to set this up. It mostly just costs him the time it takes to program an automated solution. Assuming everyone acts in their own self-interest, they would register for an account with Charlie as their referrer because they will save a lot of BTS on the fees. No one can compete with 100% rakeback, and all referral businesses that rely on the referral program for profit would die off.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_(poker)#Rakeback

Unfortunately for them there's a grand total of 15 BTC of buy support for NuShares across all exchanges? Yay, $750 000 of Nubits are backed by $6000 of NuShares buy support.

https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_nsr
https://bter.com/trade/nsr_btc

Which is literally nothing and that tiny buy support would evaporate if NuShares was having to dump to support NuBits.

I think they have a few levels of reserves and I think they can still offer interest on parked Nubits before they get to that stage.

I don't think market capitalization or value should be determined primarily by the amount of buy orders, but more as to the current price. There has been $6500 in volume on the NSR markets today, and there are a lot of holders in the NSR community. I am biased though.. I have been investing in NSR.

The post up-thread explaining all of the competitors to bitUSD, including their market capitalization and volume, sum up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. Bitshares should be neck and neck with its competitors considering it was the first to market. Bitshares was my original pick to be the market leader, but the lack of success has lead me to having to diversify my holdings for this crypto market (stable asset and DEX). It is time to take the bull by the horns and swallow our pride, as to the hatred for Nubits and their solution, and get this problem solved.

People around here seem to hate Nubits because they print money, and then look the other way when it comes to BTS printing money (dilution).

To me it looks, the tradevolume is only the market maker who recieved a lot of funds in the beginning for free. thats all i see.

Most of that was burned and does not exist anymore. The info regarding that is on Nubits' forums.

@CoinHoarder
So you are proposing to have a deposit account that people can send their BTS to, that will be used to provide liquidity autonomously with a collateral ratio defined by the committee without even "diluting" shareholders more (except maybe to encourage to provide liquidity by a offering a 'yield') .. Is that about correct?

That is certainly one way to go about it. However, dilution is certain and necessary, because you have to incentivize people to take the risks of market making. The yield or incentive percentage can be set by the comittee, so it could be lowered as the exchange gains more "natural liquidity".

I would consider that the "Nubits version" of my proposal, and is not how I originally described it. Both solutions have different pros/cons. I would support either versions of the proposal because I think liquidity is a big issue.

I guess I don't have an opinion either way, but if more people would be able to get behind the Nubits version of the proposal, then I would be all for it.

I posted this in another thread but I will post here too, why not use some of the worker funds to pay "interest" to people that would pool their funds(bts and bitUSD) to a bot/pool(whatever) to maintain the peg?

Total witness and worker budget seems to be 130M bts per year (6,5% inflation at 2B cap bts) with 10M of those funds we can pay an anual interest rate of 2% to a Pool value of 500.000.000 bts. I don't know if this rate is too much or too low but we need to take in to account that it is more probable to have looses than profits from the trading bot if we aim for a tight peg.

Quote

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/discussion-liquidity-operations-a-paradigm-shift/3379

Before you scream about inflation, keep in mind that right now we have 12,5% inflation from the merger alone plus a max posible of 6,5% from workers and witness budget, trying to save 0,5%(or whatever) would not be wise imo IF those funds could help maintain the peg.

I don't know if this could work at all, or if its too hard to be implemented, just my thoughts.

FYI- The last time I looked the current going rate liquidity providers get for providing liquidity for Nubits is 8%

Liquidity as Nubuts does it is very complicated and takes many people to enforce the peg. If we were to go this route, then I would suggest making everything happen autonomously. Go over to their forums to the liquidity subforum to find out how big of a clusterfuck liquidity for Nubuts is. We have an advantage here in that we have a DEX on our chain and thus can automate the liquidity operations. People would just need to lock up funds they want to use for liquidity operations, then the committee set the margin (or how tight the peg is).

I've posted the reason above but you didn't quote it.

I am still confused as to exactly how the vulnerability you are claiming would work. Please elaborate or explain it differently. I have a strong suspicion that the kind of market manipulation you are mentioning can be done even if my proposal was never implemented.

on the opposite bitUSD is NOT fully backed, especially when huge amount of them are created via dilution

Imo BitUSD can be considered as fully backed if there hasn't been unlimited BTS diluted to create them.

I don't agree with these statements. Are diluted BTS tokens not fungible? Are they not able to be used in a way that any other BTS token could be? Developers seemingly have been selling, trading and transferring diluted BTS tokens with no issues. Why is an IPO-created BTS token any more valuable (or different) than a dilution-created BTS (especially a "neutral-dilution-created BTS token")? I posit that if the price is not directly affected by the dilution, then you can't claim that the SmartCoins' aren't fully backed. SmartCoins' inherently have the possibility of becoming "under collateralized" with or without my proposal. Either way, the price will need to drop substantially for that to happen. I don't see the difference as far as SmartCoin collateralized by "diluted BTS" or "natural BTS", but I think you may have a point about market manipulation and I am still thinking it over.

What about making liquidty pools just like NBT has?

I think the answer could be paying users to risk their own bts rather than risking the networks bts directly. 

Lets say a third party set up a program to promote liquidity.  You could register an account with them, and then your trades would be watched.  An algorithm would decide how much each of your trades/positions helped liquidity.  You would then get a monthly payout to the top n liquidity supporters paid for from a worker proposal.

The dilution is low and known.  The risk is held by the traders, and they are compensated for that through the worker proposal.

@kingscrown @puppies

This is how liquidity pools in Nubits works... users front their own funds for the operations. I think we should seriously consider this avenue as well. However, Nushares still dilutes their shareholders to provide sufficient incentive to liquidity pools. Bitshares would have to endure "real negative dilution" to make that work, but it still may be less risky for BTS shareholders to have users front the funds used in the liquidity operations. They will of course need something in return to front those funds and take that risk, thus "real negative dilution" would have to occur. I am also not sure exactly how many people would be willing to front funds for this. I suppose Nubits hasn't had any trouble with this (finding people willing to take the risks), so maybe it is not a big deal.

Another option is using the liquidity pool to fund my proposal rather than dilution. Over time, assuming the liquidity operations are profitable, the amount of liquidity it is able to provide will grow.

There are a few good ideas floating around regarding liquidity. I think most of the ideas are not true long term solutions, but I have read a handful of solid ideas that would actually have some sort of effect on long term liquidity operations. There are actually so many decent ideas that it is challenging to find which would work best. I am going to continue to improve on my idea in the meantime (because I am biased  ). After I feel like I cannot improve on my idea any more, then I will proceed look at the other ideas and write a similar paper on each. I see liquidity as being Bitshares number one problem right now, so I will continue to work towards having a liquid DEX.