BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: gn1 on December 04, 2015, 02:09:57 pm
-
I performed some testing of market fees on UIA/BTS market.
I found out that setting market fee on "update asset" page will only allow the UIA issuer to collect a configured percentage of UIA from the trader who will be "receiving UIA" (a.k.a. UIA buyers) when a trade takes place.
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
This result was unexpected because I thought that one of the goals of the BitShares community was to onboard existing external exchanges and encourage them to use BitShares as their trading engine. If you allow external exchanges to only collect market fee from the UIA buyers, they will lose half of their revenue streams because they cannot collect BTS from the UIA seller. They will rather keep using their own system because their system already allows them to collect market fee from both sides.
That is why I believe that the current market fee structure on BitShares is faulty. Let me know what you think.
-
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
That would indeed be suboptimal. Can anyone confirm this is the design?
If this *is* the design, how can you expect existing exchanges to accept 50% less revenue when onboarding with bitshares?
-
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
That would indeed be suboptimal. Can anyone confirm this is the design?
If this *is* the design, how can you expect existing exchanges to accept 50% less revenue when onboarding with bitshares?
If exchanges use exchange.bts/exchange.fiat pairs then should be no problem.
-
However, it seems like the UIA issuer cannot collect market fee (in BTS!) from the trader who will be "receiving BTS" (a.k.a. UIA sellers) when a trade takes place. Why is that? Don't you think it's necessary for UIA issuer to be able to collect market fee from both the UIA buyer and seller, instead of the buyer only?
That would indeed be suboptimal. Can anyone confirm this is the design?
If this *is* the design, how can you expect existing exchanges to accept 50% less revenue when onboarding with bitshares?
If exchanges use exchange.bts/exchange.fiat pairs then should be no problem.
I was not talking about Smartcoins though. I'm talking about the faulty market fee structure of the current UIA/BTS market.
-
If exchanges use exchange.bts/exchange.fiat pairs then should be no problem.
Not currently possible, though. Smartcoins do not represent the underlying well enough - they are separate currencies.
-
It isn't faulty. Imagine trading OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC who should get the fees when those two assets trade?
-
It isn't faulty. Imagine trading OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC who should get the fees when those two assets trade?
bytemaster,
Actually, I'm asking that very question in another thread below so please save that for the other thread.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20411.0.html
---------------------------------
Here, I am talking about UIA/BTS market, not the UIA/UIA market.
I think I should bring up an example, which should make it more clear.
CCEDK has a trading pair OBITS/BTS on its exchange.
https://www.ccedk.com/obits-bts
If you trade through CCEDK, you pay a market fee in "OBITS" when buying "OBITS." When you sell OBITS for BTS, you pay a market fee in "BTS." So CCEDK gets to charge market fee for both buyers and sellers.
However, in Openledger, it doesn't work that way.
Although the market fee for OBITS is currently set to 0% at this time, let's say market fee is configured for the sake of this argument.
In BitShares UIA, I found out that one only pays the market fee when buying OBITS, but one does NOT need to pay the market fee when selling OBITS for BTS. Why is BitShares designed in such a way? This design simply makes BitShares inferior compared to the centralized exchanges because the UIA issuer can only charge the buyers.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "faulty", but at least this design makes BitShares much less competitive. What is your intention behind this design?
-
@bytemaster ,
After reading your comment on the other thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20411.0.html) and your mention about OPEN.BTC vs TRADE.BTC, I think I know what you are trying to say.
I think you are trying to say that you as a UIA issuer only deserves to charge market fee when somebody tries to "buy" YourUIA, and since BTS is not your personal asset, you don't have the right to charge market fee in BTS even when somebody tries to "sell" YourUIA for BTS.
If that is what you are trying to say, I would like to disagree to that.
I think that if the trading pair is YourUIA/BTS, and only when the trading pair is YourUIA against BTS, you as an UIA Issuer should be allowed to charge BTS as a market fee for someone selling YourUIA for BTS, because BTS is the "key currency" in BItShares and should be treated different from trading YourUIA versus smartcoins or another UIA.
Think like this. Somebody is dumping YourUIA for BTS, trying to lower the value of YourUIA. Don't you think it's legitimate for UIA issuer to charge a market fee in BTS when they do that?
-
For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.
-
For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.
Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.
-
For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.
Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.
Yes, unless you trade OPEN.DOGE for OPEN.BTC in which case it is the same as a centralized exchange. You only get to charge 50% when you are only providing 50% of the service. Your asset gets to be used in MORE markets than it would otherwise.
-
It's not the same as the centralized exchange at all. I just explained the difference of design between CCEDK and Openledger in my previous response.
I'm surprised to see that the community doesn't see this as a problematic design.
You guys keep bringing up UIA/UIA pairs, but that's not my point.
I'm only talking about UIA/BTS pair and nothing else. I'm simply proposing that UIA issuer should be allowed to collect BTS when somebody sells your UIA for BTS.
As BTS is the key currency in BitShares, it shouldn't be treated the same way as other UIA/UIA pairs or UIA/Smartcoin pairs.
Look below.
(http://genxnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/obits-bts.png)
CCEDK charges the seller 4 BTS when trying to sell 100 OBITS at price 20BTS/OBITS. You can't do this on Openledger. That's the problem.
-
It's not the same as the centralized exchange at all. I just explained the difference of design between CCEDK and Openledger in my previous response.
I'm surprised to see that the community doesn't see this as a problematic design.
You guys keep bringing up UIA/UIA pairs, but that's not my point.
I'm only talking about UIA/BTS pair and nothing else. I'm simply proposing that UIA issuer should be allowed to collect BTS when somebody sells your UIA for BTS.
As BTS is the key currency in BitShares, it shouldn't be treated the same way as other UIA/UIA pairs or UIA/Smartcoin pairs.
Look below.
(http://genxnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/obits-bts.png)
CCEDK charges the seller 4 BTS when trying to sell 100 OBITS at price 20BTS/OBITS. You can't do this on Openledger. That's the problem.
If I sell OBITS on OpenLedger, OpenLedger will receive 80% of the fee I pay...as well as 100% of the fee paid by whomever bought the OBITS from me using BTS. Unless I'm missing something, the only difference between this scenario and the one you demonstrated above is that the network gets 20% of the fee on the BTS side. So what's wrong with that?
-
I think you are talking about network fee for placing an order, while I'm talking about both network fee for placing order and market fee for a fill.
CCEDK OBITS/BTS Market
Centralized exchange will charge X% market fee from both the buyer and seller in the receiving asset. It looks like CCEDK has their market fee configured to 0.2%. So, if someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays 4 BTS to CCEDK, and buyer pays 0.2 OBITS to CCEDK. If someone sells 10000 OBITS, seller pays 400 BTS to CCEDK and buyer pays 20 OBITS to CCEDK.
Openledger OBITS/BTS Market
Let's say that issuer of OBITS configures 0.2% market fee on Openledger. Let's also say that core exchange rate is set to 20BTS/OBITS. If someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays "10BTS worth of OBITS" as network fee (that is 0.5 OBITS) when placing the order and no fee for a fill. Buyer pays "10BTS as network fee" when placing the order and on top of that, they will also pay 0.2 OBITS to the UIA issuer when order gets filled.
So, buyer of UIA pays two times, once when placing order and again when receiving the UIA.
Don't you think UIA seller should also pay two times, once when placing order and again when receiving BTS?
In the current system, the UIA issuer can only charge market fee to the buyer, but can only receive "10 BTS worth of OBITS" from the seller, and that is the limit.
On the centralized exchange, there is no limit because transaction fee is based on buyer's and seller's traded volume.
That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.
-
That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.
+5% This is extremely important to get right, otherwise you'll never onboard centralised exchanges.
-
I think you are talking about network fee for placing an order, while I'm talking about both network fee for placing order and market fee for a fill.
CCEDK OBITS/BTS Market
Centralized exchange will charge X% market fee from both the buyer and seller in the receiving asset. It looks like CCEDK has their market fee configured to 0.2%. So, if someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays 4 BTS to CCEDK, and buyer pays 0.2 OBITS to CCEDK. If someone sells 10000 OBITS, seller pays 400 BTS to CCEDK and buyer pays 20 OBITS to CCEDK.
Openledger OBITS/BTS Market
Let's say that issuer of OBITS configures 0.2% market fee on Openledger. Let's also say that core exchange rate is set to 20BTS/OBITS. If someone sells 100 OBITS, seller pays "10BTS worth of OBITS" as network fee (that is 0.5 OBITS) when placing the order and no fee for a fill. Buyer pays "10BTS as network fee" when placing the order and on top of that, they will also pay 0.2 OBITS to the UIA issuer when order gets filled.
So, buyer of UIA pays two times, once when placing order and again when receiving the UIA.
Don't you think UIA seller should also pay two times, once when placing order and again when receiving BTS?
In the current system, the UIA issuer can only charge market fee to the buyer, but can only receive "10 BTS worth of OBITS" from the seller, and that is the limit.
On the centralized exchange, there is no limit because transaction fee is based on buyer's and seller's traded volume.
That means, centralized exchange has no incentives to do business with BitShares because they can collect more money if they use their own proprietary system.
I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base. It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer). I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.
-
I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base. It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer). I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.
Consider the biggest external exchange, okcoin. Currently, they collect fees in CNY and BTC. If they came to bitshares, and opened a BTS/OKCOIN.CNY market using their OKCOIN.CNY IOU token, the would only collect fees in OKCOIN.CNY, not BTS.
I suppose they could create OKCOIN.BTS, but that's kind messy.
-
I'm sorry, but I think you're pretty confused so your assessment is almost completely off base. It seems the one legitimate point you have is that exchanges prefer a %-based fee whereas on OpenLedger they would get 80% of a flat network fee (at least in cases where the exchange is the registrar and referrer). I would agree that's a problem and I hope it will change in the near future.
Consider the biggest external exchange, okcoin. Currently, they collect fees in CNY and BTC. If they came to bitshares, and opened a BTS/OKCOIN.CNY market using their OKCOIN.CNY IOU token, the would only collect fees in OKCOIN.CNY, not BTS.
I suppose they could create OKCOIN.BTS, but that's kind messy.
In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees. In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees? Am I missing something?
-
In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees. In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees? Am I missing something?
The only thing you are missing is why okcoin has no incentive to join the BTS network. If they join bitshares, they have more costs and less revenue than if they just opened their own BTS/CNY market.
-
In your example, OKCoin would get up to 80% of the BTS fees IF they are responsible for registering and referring the account that placed the trade which generated those BTS fees. In the case of an account that OKCoin did not register or refer, why should they collect fees on both sides of the trade when someone else referred/registered the account that generated the BTS fees? Am I missing something?
The only thing you are missing is why okcoin has no incentive to join the BTS network. If they join bitshares, they have more costs and less revenue than if they just opened their own BTS/CNY market.
That's interesting. You haven't demonstrated that the exchange would have higher costs and lower revenue if they joined OpenLedger. You simply argued that they would not collect any of the BTS fees. Which is false.
-
That's interesting. You haven't demonstrated that the exchange would have higher costs and lower revenue if they joined OpenLedger. You simply argued that they would not collect any of the BTS fees. Which is false.
Higher costs:
* maintaining the UIAs (core exchange rate and so on)
* managing support requests for bitshares related systems (requiring specialists)
Lower revenue:
* no / lower than 100% trade fee collected for BTS side of each trade
-
For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.
Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.
...except you charge "double" the price compared to the centralized exchange... 8)
-
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-s3
Some 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.
-
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-s3
Some 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.
+5% Good point.
-
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
Agreed, what was said in the last mumble was extremely important and I wish BM had a chance to talk about it a bit more extensively.
Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
But I don't understand what makes you think that worker proposal #446 (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/446) can be a threat to businesses based on UIAs.
IMO #446 redistributes trading fees earned on bit-assets from the committee account to the Referral Program. How does this affect UIAs?
-
As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.
Agreed, what was said in the last mumble was extremely important and I wish BM had a chance to talk about it a bit more extensively.
Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.
But I don't understand what makes you think that worker proposal #446 (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/446) can be a threat to businesses based on UIAs.
IMO #446 redistributes trading fees earned on bit-assets from the committee account to the Referral Program. How does this affect UIAs?
#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program. However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator). I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program. This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program. Both systems need rewards to grow and prosper and we should do an ALL or NOTHING with them. The exact balance is something that can be tweaked over time.
-
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-s3
Some 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.
+5% and agree with BM's suggestion on splitting fee between referral program and UIA creator.
-
#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program.
In my opinion, redistributing percentage-based BTS fees to the referral program should only be done for SmartCoin/BTS pairs but not for UIA/BTS pairs. For SmartCoin/BTS pairs, the committee account should have control over the market fee rate of BTS, and should be able to alter it when the consensus changes. For UIA/BTS pairs, the UIA issuer should have control over the market fee rate of BTS from the update assets page, not the commitee account. It should be designed so that the market fee made in BTS will flow directly into the UIA issuer's fee pool.
However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator). I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program.
I think you need to consider who takes the most risk in the equation. I believe the biggest risk taker is the UIA issuer (who is also the market maker), so the percentage-based fee in BTS should not be split between the referral program and the UIA issuer. The BTS fee one makes in the UIA/BTS market should fully belong to the UIA issuer. Each market should be seen as its own mini business, right? Then, why split profit with the referral program? Do that with SmartCoin, not UIA. Network is already charging 10BTS from the fee pool anyways, so BitShares as a DAC should already be sustainable. Don't let the community become more greedy by milking profit from the UIA issuer.
This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program.
If you let the committee decide on the market fee, UIA issuer cannot do business as they desire. Let me give you an example.
What if you want to set 0.2% market fee but the consensus says 0.4%? What if you want to hold a "no market fee campaign" for the next two month but the consensus says 0.2% market fee? Then, UIA issuer cannot do business here in BitShares!
Letting the committee have control over BTS market fee on "global level" is not feasible for business.
-
I really like crediting the fee pool of the issuer with the BTS market fees. That is like giving "store credit", they can only cash it out by spending it with the blockchain.
I also like the idea of allowing BTS to yield to UIA fee settings.
The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general. Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.
-
The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general. Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.
On the flip side, no one wants to see, for example OKCOIN.BTS in order to get around the fee problem...
-
The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general. Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.
On the flip side, no one wants to see, for example OKCOIN.BTS in order to get around the fee problem...
I agree
-
I really like crediting the fee pool of the issuer with the BTS market fees. That is like giving "store credit", they can only cash it out by spending it with the blockchain.
I also like the idea of allowing BTS to yield to UIA fee settings.
Great! I knew you will like the idea. I think this will encourage the UIA issuer to put in more effort and capital in their UIA to try to jumpstart their own asset.
The primary issue I have is that putting in "special cases" for BTS asset that don't apply to all assets makes the code more error prone and the system more complex to explain in general. Currently most of the code is written in a manner that it doesn't care what the asset types involved are, they are treated equally.
I understand coding to some extent, but my brain operates more like a businessman/trader than a coder, so I don't see the magnitude of the change you need to make in the BitShares code to put in special cases for BTS asset.
Does this sound like a big-sized project?
-
Bump.
bytemaster is mentioning about this thread on this week's beyond Bitcoin hangout, between 24:14 - 26:50. You should definitely listen to it, if audio helps you understand it better than text.
https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-hangout-12-11-2015-s3
I am hoping that the BitShares community starts seeing the importance of changing the market fee structure of BTS, when considering the risks that UIA issuers are taking.
-
if audio helps you understand it better than text.
If text helps you understand it better than audio here is the Hangout Transcript : http://bitsharesnews.info/post/134988144993/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-12-11-15