I have read on the forum that AGS should get much more of the new BTS than PTS because AGS are illiquid. For disclosure, my background is in investment management, and have worked for one of the biggest endowment in the U.S with over 10B in AUM, that invests across asset classes, both in public assets and private assets, and currently work for a quant hedge fund.

It is generally believed that private equity earns higher returns than public equity. These are similar assets, except public equity is liquid, while private equity is illiquid. How much more private equity earns is open to debate, with estimates ranging between 0% and 5% annually, see newbielink:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-private-equity-beat-the-market/ [nonactive]

This means that the extra return you require each year for taking on illiquidity ranges between 0 and 5%. This suggests that it could be fair for AGS to receive somewhat more BTS than PTS, perhaps 1 to 1.05 more, due to AGS holders holding illiquid asset for 1 year, it however does not support that AGS should get more than that due to illiquidity.

Does the 32 bit version work on a 64 bit machine? Both 32 and 64 bit install didn't work.

I have been thinking about something similar and related to this a lot recently.

I've been wondering if adopting the term "bits" in place of BTSX or the previous suggestion "bips", which does not seem to have gained any traction.

I think it would go a long way to helping users understand bitassets relation to BTSX, and would make the naming of bitUSD, bitGLD, bitCNY, etc. seem more obvious.

Adopting bips would be very unfortunate, as bips, or bps, is another word for basis point, 1/100 of 1%. Used very frequently in all sorts of investments and trading environments.

Quote from: mas on August 29, 2014, 04:52:09 pm

Please focus on fixing bugs first, give the system time to mature.

Limiting the downside to 90% will inhibit price discovery and free markets.

I believe Bitshares is supposed to operate as a free market, without any outside interference. This scheme will create a feeling of a Bitshares central bank that is monitoring and controlling the system.

What will help the system grow will be making arbitrage easier. If there is easy creation of arbitrage bots and automated market makers, then this should work.

Many financial brokers offer CFD, cash for difference instruments, which operate exactly like the bitassets, except the brokers act as a market maker in them, and uses underlying financial markets to hedge the instruments. If we make hedging easy, then automated market makers and arbitrage bots should fulfill that role.

Apologize for lack of understanding and knowledge, been casually following this forum, and do hold BTSX.

Against this suggestion.

I agree with this too, but i also understand the anxiety that if we miss the opportunity make people believe that 1 bitusd = 1 usd then it might be lost for ever. Is it worth discussing this proposal as a plan b to be implemented only if near parity is not reached by xx/xx/xxxx or if the bitusd falls below xx usd? Just having it in place and tested, ready to go at a moments notice could help them aline.

I don't believe that people need to believe 1 bitUSD = 1 USD for this to work. When there are market frictions present, possibly due to difference in liquidity, market participants, limits to arbitrage, the same asset can and often will trade for different prices. That doesn't hurt anything, its simply a manifestation of limits of arbitrage and market frictions.

In BitsharesX case, there are big limits of arbitrage. I work in quantitative investing, and am interested in building an automated market maker and arbitrage bot, however I am not sure how to go about it (lack of time to develop it, not obvious where to go for information on how to connect with any soft of bitsharesx api, etc.). If this information was more easy to come about perhaps I would develop one, or other like minded people.
There is also large market frictions, in that in order to trade on the platform I need to either buy BTSX for USD, or buy BTC for USD, and then BTSX for USD, then transfer those to my wallet and then I'm ready to go. During that transformation I have lost trading fees, withdrawal fees etc. It is therefore costly to start trading at BitsharesX. All this leads to lower liquidity and differences in pricing.

Improving the arbitrage/cross hedging infrastructure, and making it easy for (not super experienced) developers to interact with the platform should slowly reduce these problems.

Can anyone else confirm that sending it from your own account to your own account will count as a transaction and avoid the 5%?

I have a same problem. Bought some BTSX and trying to transfer to my wallet, but can't transfer without registering, and need BTSX to register.

My btsx address is BTSX7CZfa9CA2kufrjq1p5CgQEB4R12AbFuPKUEkJcGDZCJkG1LEhr

Can anyone help me with enough BTSX so that I can transfer??

Thank you

Thanks

I hold some Bitshares PTS as a long term investment, and I don't plan to be actively involved. Came upon this thread by chance. Could someone explain, or link to an explanation, of what votes you are discussing?

Seems unfair to punish silent long term investors by confiscation.