BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on January 02, 2016, 04:50:11 pm
-
I would like to let everyone know what I am currently thinking in terms of CNX priorities for Q1 2016.
1. STEALTH - this project is being funded by a community member and takes highest priority
2. MAKER - this will be implemented by me and has no GUI component
3. API - this is actively being worked on by Michael and will continue to improve
4. SUPPORT - several worker proposals will be created to fund CNX to perform basic support, maintenance, and complete the implementation of existing features.
In the background I will be planning / exploring the MAS concept and attempting to gain traction. This will be the business area I would like to take CNX into as a business built on BitShares.
-
I'm really happy to finally see some concrete roadmap that includes DEX.
For me it's OK that the progress is slow - the important thing is that there IS a progress so that third-party businesses can be assured that nothing gets abandoned.
What about Plasma - won't you work on it "in the background" as well?
If so, will there be some kind of cooperation with IOTA?
And what about Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3)?
This seems to be crucial for businesses like BitShares Munich.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20789.msg269493.html#msg269493
I'd appreciate your opinion about the technical viability of this concept so at least we know if it is doable.
-
+5%
I'm really happy to finally see some concrete roadmap that includes DEX.
For me it's OK that the progress is slow - the important thing is that
there IS a progress so that third-party businesses can be assured that
nothing gets abandoned.
Agreed
What about Plasma - won't you work on it "in the background" as well?
If so, will there be some kind of cooperation with IOTA?
From what I understood, Plasma will be developed as a 'by-product' going
forward. It serves as a basic tool similar to a toolkit or library for
now but once CNX has the funds available to market the tool alone
properly, this may be a nice additional product (though one that will
probably not make a lot of profit on its own)
And what about Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/3)?
This seems to be crucial for businesses like BitShares Munich.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20789.msg269493.html#msg269493
I'd appreciate your opinion about the technical viability of this concept so at least we know if it is doable.
.. This as an opt-in asset-specific feature would definitely be nice.
-
Simple as this :) That's what it's needed.
In the background I will be planning / exploring the MAS concept and attempting to gain traction. This will be the business area I would like to take CNX into as a business built on BitShares.
This makes sense and it was probably something that we misunderstood. You only commented and shared your idea and some people (me included) thought you would immediately shift your focus towards that.
-
Simple as this :) That's what it's needed.
In the background I will be planning / exploring the MAS concept and attempting to gain traction. This will be the business area I would like to take CNX into as a business built on BitShares.
This makes sense and it was probably something that we misunderstood. You only commented and shared your idea and some people (me included) thought you would immediately shift your focus towards that.
+5%
-
+5%
-
Why is bondmarket/p2p lending not on the roadmap? You said yourself that exchanges are the most profitable type of business in the crypto-space, and the best exchanges are distinguishing themselves (and profiting massively) by offering lending for shorting.
Is this MAS thing more than just the pipedream & expensive distraction that blockchain-based voting services was?
-
Why is bondmarket/p2p lending not on the roadmap? You said yourself that exchanges are the most profitable type of business in the crypto-space, and the best exchanges are distinguishing themselves (and profiting massively) by offering lending for shorting.
Is this MAS thing more than just the pipedream & expensive distraction that blockchain-based voting services was?
On a previous post where Dan suggested focusing on the DEX he mentioned bond markets if I'm not mistaken so he might have missed that. I guess in the end it's all up to shareholders to vote for what they prefer. CNX only needs to make a worker proposal for it.
-
I'm little upset because you keep ignoring BSIP 4 (percentage based fee for filled order). Any reasons?
Let me look at USD-BTS market in last 24 hours. It has 14 filled orders with 160k BTS volume. This generated 140 BTS fee (10 BTS per filled order).
If we implement percentage based fee, and assuming the fee rate is 0.1%, plus reducing order creation fee to 1 BTS, the total fee will be 164 BTS (160k * 0.001 + 1 * 14) which is 24% higher than the current fee system.
People won't complain BSIP 4 because this system is already broadly adopted by many exchanges. It will also resolve a problem of relatively higher fees on small traders.
With more fees generated, referrers will be happy as well.
-
@speedy @Akado @clayop
In the other thread BM declared this:
I will set something up because it is apparent that BitShares needs continuous development and maintenance of its core features.
Rather than having one worker proposal, I will define 4 proposals. Each proposal will be for $7500 per month. The proposals will be "open ended" without specific tasks assigned beyond "maintaining and enhancing existing features". This will cover the cost of fixing bugs, improving documentation, adding GUI support for existing features on the blockchain (proposed transactions, white listing, withdraw permissions), improving the API, etc.
The community can then vote for how much to fund us and we will put in the time proportional to funding.
Any unfunded time will be spent building our own business on top of bitshares.
So I guess all you suggestions have a chance to be implemented - the shareholders will decide how to utilize those "open ended" worker proposals.
-
@speedy @Akado @clayop
In the other thread BM declared this:
I will set something up because it is apparent that BitShares needs continuous development and maintenance of its core features.
Rather than having one worker proposal, I will define 4 proposals. Each proposal will be for $7500 per month. The proposals will be "open ended" without specific tasks assigned beyond "maintaining and enhancing existing features". This will cover the cost of fixing bugs, improving documentation, adding GUI support for existing features on the blockchain (proposed transactions, white listing, withdraw permissions), improving the API, etc.
The community can then vote for how much to fund us and we will put in the time proportional to funding.
Any unfunded time will be spent building our own business on top of bitshares.
So I guess all you suggestions have a chance to be implemented - the shareholders will decide how to utilize those "open ended" worker proposals.
However, BM seems to be stuck in his own idea (MAKER), not listening or responding others' suggestions. IMO, MAKER is really complicated and hard to understand, in contrast to percentage based trading fee. Why does he choose a more difficult and seemingly less effective option instead of a basic and effective one?
-
However, BM seems to be stuck in his own idea (MAKER), not listening or responding others' suggestions. IMO, MAKER is really complicated and hard to understand, in contrast to percentage based trading fee. Why does he choose a more difficult and seemingly less effective option instead of a basic and effective one?
I have the impression that you're confusing two different things:
- the Maker is meant to incentivize liquidity
- percentage based trading fees have nothing to do with incentivizing liquidity
-
However, BM seems to be stuck in his own idea (MAKER), not listening or responding others' suggestions. IMO, MAKER is really complicated and hard to understand, in contrast to percentage based trading fee. Why does he choose a more difficult and seemingly less effective option instead of a basic and effective one?
I have the impression that you're confusing two different things:
- the Maker is meant to incentivize liquidity
- percentage based trading fees have nothing to do with incentivizing liquidity
No I didn't.
I think creating reasonable profit model (percentage based fee) is more important and urgent than incentivizing liquidity providers. BSIP 4 is much easier to understand, and it seems to require much less efforts.
-
I'm little upset because you keep ignoring BSIP 4 (percentage based fee for filled order). Any reasons?
Let me look at USD-BTS market in last 24 hours. It has 14 filled orders with 160k BTS volume. This generated 140 BTS fee (10 BTS per filled order).
If we implement percentage based fee, and assuming the fee rate is 0.1%, plus reducing order creation fee to 1 BTS, the total fee will be 164 BTS (160k * 0.001 + 1 * 14) which is 24% higher than the current fee system.
People won't complain BSIP 4 because this system is already broadly adopted by many exchanges. It will also resolve a problem of relatively higher fees on small traders.
With more fees generated, referrers will be happy as well.
I didn't intentionally exclude any BSIP. Something like BSIP4 we could implement under the proposed SUPPORT workers. The change is essentially to direct market fees through the fee pool and then through to the referral program for committee assets. Note that this proposal contradicts another improvement which is to transfer these same fees to the issuer of a UIA. All told, BSIP4 should probably have two modes: when trading between two assets controlled by the committee it goes to the referral program, when trading between a UIA and an asset controlled by the committee the fee should go to the UIA issuer.
-
Why is bondmarket/p2p lending not on the roadmap? You said yourself that exchanges are the most profitable type of business in the crypto-space, and the best exchanges are distinguishing themselves (and profiting massively) by offering lending for shorting.
Is this MAS thing more than just the pipedream & expensive distraction that blockchain-based voting services was?
I am talking about Q1, ultimately everything is on the roadmap we just need to make steady progress.
-
Thank you for the road map and for breaking it down so we can see (and ultimately vote on) the pieces. Lately, I've been critical of MAS, but I appreciate your clarification that it is a background project and hopefully a revenue generator for CNX. (I really do hope it works; I just do not want it to eclipse higher priority projects.)
The four elements of this road map address areas of need and they will strengthen our core business. You have my support.
-
I'm little upset because you keep ignoring BSIP 4 (percentage based fee for filled order). Any reasons?
Let me look at USD-BTS market in last 24 hours. It has 14 filled orders with 160k BTS volume. This generated 140 BTS fee (10 BTS per filled order).
If we implement percentage based fee, and assuming the fee rate is 0.1%, plus reducing order creation fee to 1 BTS, the total fee will be 164 BTS (160k * 0.001 + 1 * 14) which is 24% higher than the current fee system.
People won't complain BSIP 4 because this system is already broadly adopted by many exchanges. It will also resolve a problem of relatively higher fees on small traders.
With more fees generated, referrers will be happy as well.
I didn't intentionally exclude any BSIP. Something like BSIP4 we could implement under the proposed SUPPORT workers. The change is essentially to direct market fees through the fee pool and then through to the referral program for committee assets. Note that this proposal contradicts another improvement which is to transfer these same fees to the issuer of a UIA. All told, BSIP4 should probably have two modes: when trading between two assets controlled by the committee it goes to the referral program, when trading between a UIA and an asset controlled by the committee the fee should go to the UIA issuer.
Thanks for your reply. I will support the worker proposal.
From my understanding, if UIA and BTS (for example) are traded, the fee in UIA (market fee % of UIA) goes to UIA issuer and the fee in BTS (committee members decide) goes to network and referrers, aren't they?
-
Love the roadmap. Thanks BM. We're getting so close now.....it's going to be a huge year for BitShares. One issue after another dealt with. The results of new funding experiments will be in. The incentive for use of the dex will grow and may even reach critical awareness. The governance structure will really begin flexing its shareholder endowed muscles. The BitShates community will become supercharged and the network effect juggernaught will begin to roll!
-
I would like to let everyone know what I am currently thinking in terms of CNX priorities for Q1 2016.
1. STEALTH - this project is being funded by a community member and takes highest priority
2. MAKER - this will be implemented by me and has no GUI component
3. API - this is actively being worked on by Michael and will continue to improve
4. SUPPORT - several worker proposals will be created to fund CNX to perform basic support, maintenance, and complete the implementation of existing features.
In the background I will be planning / exploring the MAS concept and attempting to gain traction. This will be the business area I would like to take CNX into as a business built on BitShares.
Very reasonable Q1 objectives. Particularly looking forward to seeing what Michael has been working on..