Tony, this is a great idea :) Almost makes up for all of your other posts!
The way I understand it is that the only way to enter or exit a BTS position is through the internal market.
This would end up cutting off any exchange that didn't become a gateway *or* list BitUSD. The impact would be to get BTS off of the exchanges.
The work around would be for an exchange to offer EXCHANGE.BTS that they offer to buy/sell at 1:1... then you transfer EXCHANGE.BTS into the exchange. This extra difficulty would probably cause the internal exchange to be preferred and few exchanges would jump through that hoop.
The only downside is that the value of BTS would fall in the short-term due to loss of liquidity. The conversion would take a long time as people would need to withdraw from exchanges before the shares get locked up.
The only downside is that the value of BTS would fall in the short-term due to loss of liquidity. The conversion would take a long time as people would need to withdraw from exchanges before the shares get locked up.
I am wondering whether that's me, or that's it's a little bit difficult to understand? Seriously, am I reading this 4th time :/Sorry my English maybe.
Ok, So I have $20 and I want to trade them for some bitAsset. What I will have to do, in few different steps... ?
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
I think I got it. Is that mean, that to have a possibility of issuing bitCNY, we have to have a possibility of buying BTS directly by bitCNY ? etc?Wouldn't be that different than now. Buy BTS with some asset bought via a bridge or gateway then use that to collateralize the asset you want to issue.
In nuance (2c) it seems bitUSD is hard pegged too in contrast to how it is now.The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
No, it is not like bitUSD. True that it is not a real USD though. It is an IOU which is hard pegged to 1 Fed Reserve USD. In contrast to USD IOU, bitUSD is loosely pegged to Fed Reserve USD, but has no counter party risk. In order to peg bitUSD to USD, you need to trade USD or some hard pegged IOU for BTS to derive a settlement price. What is your solution to this issue?
The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
No, it is not like bitUSD. True that it is not a real USD though. It is an IOU which is hard pegged to 1 Fed Reserve USD. In contrast to USD IOU, bitUSD is loosely pegged to Fed Reserve USD, but has no counter party risk. In order to peg bitUSD to USD, you need to trade USD or some hard pegged IOU for BTS to derive a settlement price. What is your solution to this issue?
In nuance (2c) it seems bitUSD is hard pegged too in contrast to how it is now.The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
No, it is not like bitUSD. True that it is not a real USD though. It is an IOU which is hard pegged to 1 Fed Reserve USD. In contrast to USD IOU, bitUSD is loosely pegged to Fed Reserve USD, but has no counter party risk. In order to peg bitUSD to USD, you need to trade USD or some hard pegged IOU for BTS to derive a settlement price. What is your solution to this issue?
The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
No, it is not like bitUSD. True that it is not a real USD though. It is an IOU which is hard pegged to 1 Fed Reserve USD. In contrast to USD IOU, bitUSD is loosely pegged to Fed Reserve USD, but has no counter party risk. In order to peg bitUSD to USD, you need to trade USD or some hard pegged IOU for BTS to derive a settlement price. What is your solution to this issue?
Why?
Isn't OL exchanging bitUSD for USD at 1:1 rate and say 0.25% commission even better?
If they buy or sell bitUSD for a small spread on Open.usd the risk is less then on a centralized exchange since it'd just be an on/off ramp. However services like coinomat will do bitUSD to real (Visa) usd for a small spread.The external exchange isn't real USD either. It's an issued asset just like bitUSD.
Sorry my English maybe.
So if you have USD - you buy bitUSD with USD - from say Ronny's ccedk, and start trading in the DEX.
If you have BTC - you buy bitUSD with BTC on say polo or from blocktrades gateway.
More or less same as now, just BTS will be non-transferable, but only tradeable. That is to say the only way to get BTS is to buy them in the DEX itself for bitUSD (or other DEX Asset)
And how do you derive a settlement price for bitUSD, if you don't trade BTS against real USD at external exchange?
No, it is not like bitUSD. True that it is not a real USD though. It is an IOU which is hard pegged to 1 Fed Reserve USD. In contrast to USD IOU, bitUSD is loosely pegged to Fed Reserve USD, but has no counter party risk. In order to peg bitUSD to USD, you need to trade USD or some hard pegged IOU for BTS to derive a settlement price. What is your solution to this issue?
Why?
Isn't OL exchanging bitUSD for USD at 1:1 rate and say 0.25% commission even better?
OL already has their USD. It is called OPEN.USD. It is 1:1 pegged to USD, which is good. But it has a problem: a counter party risk, which bitUSD does not have.
If they buy or sell bitUSD for a small spread on Open.usd the risk is less then on a centralized exchange since it'd just be an on/off ramp. However services like coinomat will do bitUSD to real (Visa) usd for a small spread.
OL already has their USD. It is called OPEN.USD. It is 1:1 pegged to USD, which is good. But it has a problem: a counter party risk, which bitUSD does not have.
(this is the part, when I don't know what will going to happen... I am improvising. Please correct me!)
Because 1 BTS is now worth only 0.04375 USD, that means that with 1 USD network can buy ~22.9515 BTS (let's say ~23 BTS). But because 200% is required, ~46 BTS are needed (6 BTS more than before). Those 6 BTS are taken from collateral of issuer (in that case CCEDK) and 40-26=14 BTS will be given them back. Because CCEDK not adjusted collateral, they loose ~6 BTS from their 20 BTS of collateral (~30%). In that case loan was paid from CCEDK funds.
You might ask, why anyone would risk issuing an assets, when in case of margin call, they would loose their money. In my understanding the benefit would be a bridge fee as a profit. But is it that mean, that issuer will has to believe, that BTS price will rise? Is it not a too risky assumption for businesses like gateway/bride provider? Exchanges should earn money despite the fact that prices sometimes drops.True. Exchanges should not be the final bitUSD issuers (or at least not with big portion of their funds). Ideally they should just buy bitUSD from the market and leave the risk spread between several (hundred; thousand??? :)) BTS bulls.
You might ask, why anyone would risk issuing an assets, when in case of margin call, they would loose their money. In my understanding the benefit would be a bridge fee as a profit. But is it that mean, that issuer will has to believe, that BTS price will rise? Is it not a too risky assumption for businesses like gateway/bride provider? Exchanges should earn money despite the fact that prices sometimes drops.
You might ask, why anyone would risk issuing an assets, when in case of margin call, they would loose their money. In my understanding the benefit would be a bridge fee as a profit. But is it that mean, that issuer will has to believe, that BTS price will rise? Is it not a too risky assumption for businesses like gateway/bride provider? Exchanges should earn money despite the fact that prices sometimes drops.True. Exchanges should not be the final bitUSD issuers (or at least not with big portion of their funds). Ideally they should just buy bitUSD from the market and leave the risk spread between several (hundred; thousand??? :)) BTS bulls.
Isn't it nearly always the case that you short sell because you think your collateral will increase in value?
In your scenario what if CCEDK just bought 1 USD off the DEX or some other exchange rather than issuing it themselves and then offered you $0.99 bitUSD for your $1 USD. Then they make their 1% spread without being exposed to any collateral risk. They'd also offer to buy bitUSD for $0.99 USD making their spread 2%.
I never understand these things at first but today we have the problem that shorts don't want to create BitUSD at 1-1 and demand a huge premium because BTS price expectations are neutral to negative and they can be force settled/margin called pretty easily.
This solution seems to require equal/more collateral from BitUSD creators, so the problem will remain/be exasperbated and very little BitUSD will be created?
This idea would work if there are values in the DEX co-op so much so that users want to get in. Otherwise the effect can be detrimental. I think we are still building values and liquidity on the blockchain and it is too early to consider such a move.
I never understand these things at first but today we have the problem that shorts don't want to create BitUSD at 1-1 and demand a huge premium because BTS price expectations are neutral to negative and they can be force settled/margin called pretty easily.
This solution seems to require equal/more collateral from BitUSD creators, so the problem will remain/be exasperbated and very little BitUSD will be created?
I do not claim this proposal to be perfect. It just solves (well seems to solve) a bunch of issues and delivers improvements on several fronts. Until it is implemented it will remain just a theory [and as you might know there are people that use the "It is just a theory" and not a 'fact' argument even against Darwinism].
Besides the things already mentioned in the OP:
- It removes the BTS from the centralized exchanges. Something arguably very desirable.
- It moves all the BTS trading in the DEX... this might not be the 40,000 BTC a day trading volume ETH has, but is a great start for the DEX
- The fee structure and bitUSD being the 'core/fee token' aims at among other things increasing the bitUSD in existence (and so arguably liquidity). How?
Let's say on day one bitUSD still trades with 7% premium (which is misnomer in this system as I explained earlier), but let's say that a person thinks BTS should be 7% higher right now. So instead of buying 50 bitUSD in the market, he issues 50 bitUSD to himself (using his 1/2 mill in BTS account, puts 17x collateral behind his 50 bitUSD borrowed!!!) and buys the name "Empirical888" for his token. The fee to create this asset, must be paid in bitUSD, so 50 bitUSD fee is collected by the system. 30 days later this 50 bitUSD (and all other fees all in bitUSD) are spread to all BTS holders as dividend.
Results: not only bitUSD creation is encouraged and more bitUSD start circulating in the system, but most importantly a use case for bitUSD is created (other then hedging against BTS price drops).
This idea would work if there are values in the DEX co-op so much so that users want to get in. Otherwise the effect can be detrimental. I think we are still building values and liquidity on the blockchain and it is too early to consider such a move.
:)
Are you saying we are all buying into valueless BTS token right now? [or the very least overpaying for the value that there is in the system]
It is cool, I skim over 75% of the posts myself. That being said I think you missed/misunderstood (I blame my poor English and explanatory skills for that btw) that BTS are not locked up!!! You can still trade them! You sell them for bitUSD (the most likely but not the only path) and exchange the bitUSD received for USD at say Ronnie's OpenL Exchage. The only thing is, you can do this sell on the co-op's DEX only. But it is design feature and not a bug. Business entities which require first offering the 'share' to the rest of the partners and/or not allowing selling one's partnership interest at all, are not unheard of. The proposal is somewhere between that extreme and the trade-able everywhere one.This idea would work if there are values in the DEX co-op so much so that users want to get in. Otherwise the effect can be detrimental. I think we are still building values and liquidity on the blockchain and it is too early to consider such a move.
:)
Are you saying we are all buying into valueless BTS token right now? [or the very least overpaying for the value that there is in the system]
I am not suggesting bts does not have value but rather it may not have sufficient value to pull users in such that they are happy with their bts being locked up. I am thinking along the line of more liquid bitasset markets, a more developed prediction market, and a new bond market.
I somehow missed your point on users getting dividends from the bitasset transaction fees. Well, this is a cool value added to the system given the low interest rate environment all over the world. The sweet dividends will provide another value to attract users into the co-op. Your idea may work after all.
It is cool, I skim over 75% of the posts myself. That being said I think you missed/misunderstood (I blame my poor English and explanatory skills for that btw) that BTS are not locked up!!! You can still trade them! You sell them for bitUSD (the most likely but not the only path) and exchange the bitUSD received for USD at say Ronnie's OpenL Exchage. The only thing is, you can do this sell on the co-op's DEX only. But it is design feature and not a bug. Business entities which require first offering the 'share' to the rest of the partners and/or not allowing selling one's partnership interest at all, are not unheard of. The proposal is somewhere between that extreme and the trade-able everywhere one.
With this elaboration, I am beginning to see the beauty of the idea. What the idea implies is that bitshares would transform into the de-facto shares of a big decentralised co-op instead of a tradable crypto-currency now. These shares can be easily traded in and out via bitassets and bitassets become our interface with the world (instead of bts). The value of the co-op will translate into the value of the shares. The higher the value, the higher the share price.
Lets test it. Can we discuss how this might be done? as this shapes up the idea looks like something that is pretty elegant and almost seems as though it should have been obvious before. but we really need to start testing big changes before making them so we can assess what we may or may not know about that might be problematic.
love the idea and looking forward to seeing a successful test
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.First off, I am glad to see that you recognize that this idea (potentailly) solves a lot of our problems.
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.
I may also just not understand why you are not concerned with price of bitUSD on external exchanges.For me it is a matter of taking another point of view. That is to say 1 bitUSD is really one USD. ( I realize you think it may swing from this one to one peg).
Lets test it. Can we discuss how this might be done? as this shapes up the idea looks like something that is pretty elegant and almost seems as though it should have been obvious before. but we really need to start testing big changes before making them so we can assess what we may or may not know about that might be problematic.
love the idea and looking forward to seeing a successful test
Well, fist of all when did you get me off your ignore list? :)
Second of all, I am truly aware that I am #4 on your most dangerous list [shortly after CH, eth and the gov]. I do not know who give you that I idea...and it does not really matter if it was someone that "has a real good vision and wide wing span" or it was your own imagination. What matters is that it is totally not true!
And third but the only real important question is : How you see this test playing out in real life? [and when you see those choses I am sure You will not be eager to jump in either scenario too soon]
Cause for me there are only 2 choice, really.
1. BM: "dShares just got more interesting."
or
2. TK: "BM is not on board as chief dev. So we are forking and keeping 5-7% as a development fund. The rest is 100% dropped on BTS"
PS
Some more detailed explanation on the mechanics of the bitUSD deviation from the 1:1 peg will help me explain why I think it will not happen/or help me understand where my theory is wrong.
As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion. I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:Hmm, good idea! I must admit this is the first post of your last 100, I have nothing against on any level (hope same applies to you one day... :) working on it ... slowly )
we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way.
So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition. get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment. Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time. Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...
As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion. I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:
we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way.
So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition. get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment. Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time. Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...
The usual problem is, it is hard to simulate real money with fake money (think about how totally boring poker is, when played for fake chips).
[I understand your proposal gives real value to the winner(s). Just thinking about the 'no real loss for the rest" issues/implications.]
I will give it more thought tomorrow fuzz.
Cause for me there are only 2 choice, really.
1. BM: "dShares just got more interesting."
or
2. TK: "BM is not on board as chief dev. So we are forking and keeping 5-7% as a development fund. The rest is 100% dropped on BTS"
As to how i say we test it, that is open for discussion. I am no expert daytrader and do not have the same skillset that comes along with it, but in my opinion could do the following:
we run it as a test on the testnet might be a good way.
So we essentially let people.buy into a competition to see who will end up with the most cash from trading the market...use the buy in and maybe double it using a worker reward and then we can even put up a reddit thread inviting people to join in the competition. get daytraders TRYING bitshares while they are part of the experiment. Then you will have effectively used a trading competition to bot only rest it but also promote bitshares THE EXPERIMENT (which is an important distinction for those who might want to join forces) at the same time. Heck it might even recruit people who have answers i and the rest of the forum may never give you...
The usual problem is, it is hard to simulate real money with fake money (think about how totally boring poker is, when played for fake chips).
[I understand your proposal gives real value to the winner(s). Just thinking about the 'no real loss for the rest" issues/implications.]
I will give it more thought tomorrow fuzz.
We were talking about testing the idea in testnet in Telegram but the disadvantage of a testnet as you pointed out : - we cannot mimic the live network because the risk of losing one's monies is not the same as lossing someone else's monies.
Cause for me there are only 2 choice, really.
1. BM: "dShares just got more interesting."
or
2. TK: "BM is not on board as chief dev. So we are forking and keeping 5-7% as a development fund. The rest is 100% dropped on BTS"
There is one more possible alternative:
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place. Note: I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place. All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?
Good to have you back, tony.
However, what we need to establish first is on/off-ramps so that investors can get in and out. It is of no use to be able to trade your BTS into bitUSD if you can't get out.
So we need more partners to interface with bitUSD ...
Further, I do not really like the idea of having fees denoted in USD .. unless, we can also pay the fee in EUR, GOLD, etc ... using something similar to the BTS/bitUSD fee pool ..The main point is focusing only one bitAsset and TRULLY establishing it... after we do that (no matter if it is bitUSD/bitCNY/bitWhatever) I agree, more choices is better than less choices.
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place. Note: I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place. All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?
I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts. As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.
The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model. Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX. To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat. So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.
When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges. And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values. IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op. I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.
I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place. Note: I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place. All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?
I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts. As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.
The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model. Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX. To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat. So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.
When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges. And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values. IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op. I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.
I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally. I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers. Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside. From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS. The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.
I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.
Isn't it completely key to this design? Arbitrage is the problem, isn't it, and this solves it?
big disadvantage: because bitshares will be no longer a cryptocurency, I will be not surprised if coinmarketcap will remove bitshares from the list. In the other hand.. bitshares will be still tradeable.. but only on the DEX.
this might be a really good foundation for BitShares 3.0.
I just have an idea.
The dividends could be distributed to AM and LTM members only. This would give a boost to the referral program.
Suddenly I feel that the AM/LTM can be an exclusive club membership to the best things one can get in the co-op. Hmm.. a modern Lifestyle one must have.
There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
big disadvantage: because bitshares will be no longer a cryptocurency, I will be not surprised if coinmarketcap will remove bitshares from the list. In the other hand.. bitshares will be still tradeable.. but only on the DEX.
There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
?
We need bootstrap.
Distribute payments at a monthly basis.There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
?
We need bootstrap.
All babies cannot feed themselves. If this idea indeed materialised into a forked Baby net by the bitshares community, I believe there would be a good number of donors and volunteers to be its low-pay witnesses, and to see it grow.
I just have an idea.
The dividends could be distributed to AM and LTM members only. This would give a boost to the referral program.
Suddenly I feel that the AM/LTM can be an exclusive club membership to the best things one can get in the co-op. Hmm.. a modern Lifestyle one must have.
This is an exciting idea of yours TK! I think there's a way to implement this together with bytemaster's 'free transactions' idea so that we can get additional benefits like:
- Increased spam protection
- Increased demand for the buying and holding of BTS
- Increased trading on the DEX
How?
When designing the rate limiting algorithm for 'free' transactions we favor accounts holding the non-transferable BTS. This would incentivize trading on the DEX (to buy the BTS). Anyone wanting to spam the network would be further disadvantaged and could possibly be driven to use the DEX to buy and hold BTS in order to optimize their maximum 'free' transaction rate.
Then if we also consider cube's idea (below) we get a picture with all the benefits mentioned in the OP, plus additional incentives to trade on the DEX, buy and hold BTS, and to buy annual and lifetime memberships and boost the referral program! N'est pas?I just have an idea.
The dividends could be distributed to AM and LTM members only. This would give a boost to the referral program.
Suddenly I feel that the AM/LTM can be an exclusive club membership to the best things one can get in the co-op. Hmm.. a modern Lifestyle one must have.
- all exchanges which has bts on their exchange confirmed that they are aware of migration
- all exchanges which has bts on their exchange confirmed that they are aware of migration
Not just that, but this:
- all exchanges must force users to withdraw all their BTS or lose it forever
- all exchanges which has bts on their exchange confirmed that they are aware of migration
Not just that, but this:
- all exchanges must force users to withdraw all their BTS or lose it forever
That's not exactly true. If I have BTS on Poloniex post implementation I'd just sell them for bitUSD, withdraw, and buy BTS again on the DEX. It's an extra step but no real loss in value.
A gateway simply offers to trade POLONIEX.BTS into real BTS in the DEX .. then you can continue trading BTS (IOUs) in poloniex and polo would still have its voting power .. doesn't really solve the problem of people keeping their funds on centralized exchanges .. but it solves the issue of needing centralized exchanges for a price feed ..- all exchanges which has bts on their exchange confirmed that they are aware of migration
Not just that, but this:
- all exchanges must force users to withdraw all their BTS or lose it forever
That's not exactly true. If I have BTS on Poloniex post implementation I'd just sell them for bitUSD, withdraw, and buy BTS again on the DEX. It's an extra step but no real loss in value.
Yep. I suppose you'd have to request that the centralized exchange sells the BTS for bitUSD on the DEX on your behalf, then you'd have bitUSD (IOU) on the centralized exchange to do with as you wish. Of course the DEX and the centralized exchange would profit from taking a cut! This seems acceptable to me so long as enough announcements are made long enough before any changes are implemented.
A gateway simply offers to trade POLONIEX.BTS into real BTS in the DEX .. then you can continue trading BTS (IOUs) in poloniex and polo would still have its voting power .. doesn't really solve the problem of people keeping their funds on centralized exchanges .. but it solves the issue of needing centralized exchanges for a price feed ..
Tonyk's idea is getting sweeter.
YES!! [emoji2]Tonyk's idea is getting sweeter.
Do you think he deserves some brownies? Ha hah aha hahahah aha haahhahah ahahahhahahhahha ahah!
There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
?
We need bootstrap.
All babies cannot feed themselves. If this idea indeed materialised into a forked Baby net by the bitshares community, I believe there would be a good number of donors and volunteers to be its low-pay witnesses, and to see it grow.
Tonyk's idea is getting sweeter.
Do you think he deserves some brownies? Ha hah aha hahahah aha haahhahah ahahahhahahhahha ahah!
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place. Note: I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place. All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?
I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts. As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.
The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model. Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX. To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat. So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.
When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges. And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values. IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op. I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.
I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally. I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers. Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside. From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS. The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.
I think the perspective is not about restricting movement or tradability of bts (you term it 'isolated chamber') because the movement in and out of the bts network (co-op) remains free via say bitUSD/bitCNY. That is, there remains a free movement in and out.
Rather the focus is on bitUSD/bitCNY becoming the main gateway into the network. External exchanges will be trading bitUSD/bitCNY instead of bts. One of the problems with bitUSD now is that bitUSD users tend to hog their bitUSD holdings. The new model means users need to convert their bitUSD for bts to use any operation. With the shift to bitUSD/bitCNY being the main gateway, the trading of bitUSD/bitCNY would go up because of the increase in demand. The profit opportunities for trading bitUSD and bitCNY would go up too, attracting more shorters ie producers of new bitUSD/bitCNY. Once the bitUSD peg holds well because of the increased liquidity, confidence of bitUSD set in and we can expect a cycle of even more liquidity.
Bear in mind that there are now dividends giving out to the users and these dividends are based on real transaction fees earned (and not dilutions). This is an added value proposition.
And of course, as your rightly pointed out, ultimately the other value parts of the network (on/off ramp, FBA, STEALTH, Prediction Market, Bond etc) continue to be the main pulling force to attract users.
A gateway simply offers to trade POLONIEX.BTS into real BTS in the DEX .. then you can continue trading BTS (IOUs) in poloniex and polo would still have its voting power .. doesn't really solve the problem of people keeping their funds on centralized exchanges .. but it solves the issue of needing centralized exchanges for a price feed ..- all exchanges which has bts on their exchange confirmed that they are aware of migration
Not just that, but this:
- all exchanges must force users to withdraw all their BTS or lose it forever
That's not exactly true. If I have BTS on Poloniex post implementation I'd just sell them for bitUSD, withdraw, and buy BTS again on the DEX. It's an extra step but no real loss in value.
Yep. I suppose you'd have to request that the centralized exchange sells the BTS for bitUSD on the DEX on your behalf, then you'd have bitUSD (IOU) on the centralized exchange to do with as you wish. Of course the DEX and the centralized exchange would profit from taking a cut! This seems acceptable to me so long as enough announcements are made long enough before any changes are implemented.
Implementing this change would not suddenly attract a ton of new people to the exchange, but it would make BTS a pure share token and it would force all trading of that share token to occur internally.
I still don't get it. ... bitshares reputation would be even further in the toilet.
The only way I see this going well is to create a completely separate chain, like others have suggested. Whether it is ever possible to merge the two together again remains to be seen. It may be that both chains run indefinitely and the better chain wins.
Sooo is this change going to happen? Maybe we could talk about it in tomorrow's mumble.
Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
I've thought of this as well. We need to think about the worse scenario SERIOUSLY.
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.
If nobody create it, how to just buy it? Chicken and egg.Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
To create it I guess, but you can just buy it, which should be way easier assuming this model does provide the expected liquidity.
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.
When the price of BTS in in uptrend there will be more people willing to short USD (to gain even more) so no shortage of bitUSD here.
More importantly someone willing to pay $1.1 per dollar in order to buy BTS means he is willing to pay 10% more for BTS than the current price. So the price of BTS will move up to that level (assuming he represents the total demand for BTS)
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.
In this example the bitUSD sold on external exchanges somehow disappear. (as opposed to returning as a supply to the DEX market). After this is fixed, while this scenario is painful experience for the BTS holders, it describes just a new lower value of BTS. The massive buy walls can only represent people willing to exit but not willing to sell low enough [otherwise they will offer new lower price and 'move in front of that wall' so to speak]. At the extreme - they can always exit instantaneously by offering 1.75 times less than the last seen price.
More fundamental - you still describe the world as if there is some 'fair price' somewhere out there, and the trades in the DEX somehow deviate from it*. When the price in the DEX is THE PRICE
* for example here >>"If conditions get bad enough then many users will be willing to sell their bitusd externally for fiat at a discount. " Discount from what? This simply means they have somehow sold their BTS for that same premium, which is impossible and simple means the price of BTS is actually lower by this discount amount.
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.
Not necessarily. In my proposal everything else, exept bitUSD, is collateralized by bitUSD [probably at lower ratio than the 1.75x ]Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
I don't think we can make this change without impacting the implied right of transfer for BTS.
Not necessarily. In my proposal everything else, exept bitUSD, is collateralized by bitUSD [probably at lower ratio than the 1.75x ]Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
- another chain
This thread has exploded in just one day!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?
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.
- another chain
dexSHARES
Agreed.- another chain
dexSHARES
Excitement and valid concerns in the mix! dexShares seems to be a way to test it out.
This thread has exploded in just one day!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?
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.
This thread has exploded in just one day!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?
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.
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.
The only difference would be that in order to transfer BTS to their own wallets, users would have to sell their exchange.BTS for BitUSD, transfer that to their own wallet, and then repurchase BTS on the DEX. I'm not sure this is the best user experience, and as mentioned the main goal of having BTS trade ONLY on the DEX is not achieved.We are giving up our right to transfer BTS for the privilege of having liquidity for SmartCoins.
Making a bitUSD a special bitAsset is bad idea. It should not be different from any other asset pegged to fiat.
Making a bitUSD a special bitAsset is bad idea. It should not be different from any other asset pegged to fiat.
That's my only concern for me too... I like TonyK idea very much but we should not focus on bitUSD only...
What happens if real USD or Euro collapses?(it will....) We must focus on a basket of top bitAssets that includes the major assets (euro,dollars.pound etc...)
like the SDR for example...https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx and we should add bitBTC and bitETH (or whatever crypto are @ top of the CMC list)
... since I expect the FIAT money will loose value hardly the next months....
PS tonyk unites us again! :) +5%
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Ma9efd61ea3e4962fcb24f026b01be5abo0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=2d801db39c672d41ddc0551c3d179300)
We are giving up our right to transfer BTS for the privilege of having liquidity for SmartCoins.
It's a trade-off.
Which do you prefer: transferability of BTS or liquidity for bitUSD?
For me, the choice is quite obvious. I prefer liquidity.
Having said that if the OP is implemented then it will be more likely that whales will come on board and create those bitassets...So I don't know how I should feel about implementing this change...Please whatever you decide don't create a shock in the market and bts drops to $3 mil market cap because then my wife will divorce me.. :)
"What is good instead is dilution to the max" he says. "
"What is good instead is dilution to the max" he says. "
Hmmm......
So it will make only sense to hold/buy bitAssets and/or ... (?)
Could we create a new a type asset called BitBond that is used for this?
Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?
I admit I haven't fully grasped the potential consequences or negative aspects this idea might have but I actually liked it. Dividends was our strongest selling point, ever. We have a chance to bring them back with this.
This puts everything in place. Shares stay here and our products outside, everywhere to be properly used. And is the use of those same assets that dictate the success of BitShares, not the speculation going around in crypto. I'm afraid the short term impact this could have honestly but on the other hand, BitShares would be way more solid with this. Something to back it's value. Adoption and usage of its products instead of just being tossed around for speculation like any other crypto out there and no one could ever argue with that.
It would make BitShares more firm and its value would derivate from its utility, speculation could potentially have less influence. Combine this with Rate Limited Fees and Bond Markets. Receipt for success? It would be the most solid crypto project I've ever seen and finally one who backs its value with utility and not speculation only. That would set us apart from the rest, would place us another whole new league imo.
In my view the guy placing the last order is the one creating the opportunity. From here on there are several scenarios:Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?
There ought to be genuine arbitrage opportunities in the internal markets - e.g. triangular arbitrage between bitUSD/BTS, bitUSD/bitCNY, bitCNY/BTS. The blockchain would always be the one profiting from any opportunity because it can act instantly before any other participants.
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?
Nice try, but no thanks.
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?
Nice try, but no thanks.
@tonyk what do you think if I develop this and launch a testing network? Will you lead the testing work? And what do you think is the best approach?
At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.
At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.
I will not speak for BM, I will just say that some of the concerns that he should have arise for the consequences for BTS and in particular its transformation to this new state. Something that was pointed out by many. I personally have also acknowledged those issues and have never pretended they do not exist. My personal take is/was they are for the better good and are outweighed by the benefits.
Anyway, the new chain approach eliminates this, as there will be no process of 'eliminating the right to transfer' for current BTS holders and there will be no slow process of outdrawing everything from exchanges and all its messy consequences.
CoinHoarder you should stop reading here if you are not ready to read my posts for what they are - disagreement with ideas/actions and not personal attacks on the poster!!!
I really do not see any issues of any great significance in your post up thread, other than the one address above. Feel free to explain again the ' few very valid concerns' that you believe are the big no-nos. It as well could be me, not seeing them from the correct angle.
@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only. Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?
@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only. Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?
Sorry but I did not get the question.(read it 7 times, btw). Can you rephrase it?
BTS will trade for everything anyone wants to trade it for, in the DEX. And I do not see it trading at 1.01 for say OPEN.USD and at 0.9999 for say TUSD as deviation from the peg [when its price is 1USD/BTS]. If that is the question.
Bts would only be used to backFITFY :)btsbitUSD. UIA such as open.btc will use the collateral of the issuer.
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc. So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?
At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc. So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?
No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc. So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?
No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).
Why does it matter if the markets are external or on the DEX? You still have to factor many different BTS markets. The only difference is that there would be no BTS feeds for the witnesses to bother with.
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc. So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?
No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).
Why does it matter if the markets are external or on the DEX? You still have to factor many different BTS markets. The only difference is that there would be no BTS feeds for the witnesses to bother with.
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc. So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?
No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).
Why does it matter if the markets are external or on the DEX? You still have to factor many different BTS markets. The only difference is that there would be no BTS feeds for the witnesses to bother with.
The 'only difference' you just described impossible with external arbitrage.
That's a pretty terse answer. But I think you're trying to say that it's difficult to do arbitrage on external markets, whereas arbitrage on the internal DEX markets can be done very efficiently. That makes sense. I wonder why no one has stated this clearly after MULTIPLE questions about the benefit of eliminating BTS trading from the centralized exchanges!
That's a pretty terse answer. But I think you're trying to say that it's difficult to do arbitrage on external markets, whereas arbitrage on the internal DEX markets can be done very efficiently. That makes sense. I wonder why no one has stated this clearly after MULTIPLE questions about the benefit of eliminating BTS trading from the centralized exchanges!
Not just difficult, but impossible. If you cannot transfer BTS, you cannot arbitrage externally at all, which implies that the price of BTS can only be affected by DEX trades.
There is a more significant point as well, in that the blockchain itself is ideally placed to do instant arbitrage between markets and to redistribute this to BTS holders as dividends.
my biggest issue remain funding this new chain.
Ok, that makes sense. So now the question is, why is no one doing any of this instant arbitrage between the various versions of the same assets on the DEX? Without that, instead of realizing the promise of pooled liquidity, we're mired in a shit storm of duplicate assets that is making the DEX unusable for most people.
At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.
I will not speak for BM, I will just say that some of the concerns that he should have arise for the consequences for BTS and in particular its transformation to this new state. Something that was pointed out by many. I personally have also acknowledged those issues and have never pretended they do not exist. My personal take is/was they are for the better good and are outweighed by the benefits.
Anyway, the new chain approach eliminates this, as there will be no process of 'eliminating the right to transfer' for current BTS holders and there will be no slow process of outdrawing everything from exchanges and all its messy consequences.
CoinHoarder you should stop reading here if you are not ready to read my posts for what they are - disagreement with ideas/actions and not personal attacks on the poster!!!
I really do not see any issues of any great significance in your post up thread, other than the one address above. Feel free to explain again the ' few very valid concerns' that you believe are the big no-nos. It as well could be me, not seeing them from the correct angle.
@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only. Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?
I don't see BTS keep it's valuation if there is not enough demand for the products (bitassets).
I think we should get our 2.0 products out there first. and once we have some liquidity traded in the BTS:bitasset markets, we can then still upgrade the 2.0 products to 3.0 products .. would you agree?
Could we create a bond asset that converts 1:1 to bts. The funds from the bond asset can be used by for the bot that the committee controls. The reserve pool could then be used to only pay dividends to the bond based on the performance on the bot. This would cut down on the risk of the funds in the reserve pool. The bond holders assume the risk and the network only has to pay out when there is a profit.
Or maybe this split the difference. The bond puts up half of the collateral and pool the other half. Profits are split 50/50 for asset sells.
If we developed the new features, we need to test the functionalities first, right? So that's what I said "testing". If it doesn't work at all, for example crashes once a hour, it's not possible to launch a real chain. When to release a real chain, or how to , is another story.@tonyk what do you think if I develop this and launch a testing network? Will you lead the testing work? And what do you think is the best approach?
1.I think it is very unlikely 'BTS main' to simply jumps into this new direction itself. Nor I am saying it should - I just see a ton of benefits if it does. Others have pointed concerns. Concerns with various degrees of seriousness. I have yet to see any outweighing the positives, but it is just one man's opinion.
2. I do not see a test chain having any way to prove one way or the other if this thing works. At the end, We are mainly testing market incentives; and with test-chain where such incentives are removed I do not see the experiment working. What I see is a new chain testing the theory. I mean a full blown chain of its own, even if its init status matches BTS share distribution 1:1.
3.Assuming we more or less agree on p.2 - It was truly amazing how you have seeming excelled at Graphene code. Especially amazing was the speed with which you did the '*poor man's bandwidth fees' feature [Do not get me wrong - I called it poor man's because it is lacking the stuff that reduces the usage at high tx times (or increases the fee at such times) and paying the fees by locking funds in the future in order to earn fees post factum. On the opposite - they way you did it - aka keeping the fees and just earning them by having a balance for time X, is much closer to what I believe is better (for this proposal purposes and in general)]. So even that the feature (changes) to the existing code I have proposed so far in this thread seem to be just 2-3 times more work than what you have done (coded) for bitshares already, my biggest issue remain funding this new chain. And while I am willing to do what you call testing for free [I am not very sure what will I really test, as I am not much of a coder. So it will be more like running the code as a user and seeing if it works, more than true testing]Yes, you proposed the features, you should know what you want better than anyone else, so you're the best one to check whether it works like you want, the more comprehensive, the better. I mean this kind of testing. You don't even need to run the code, I or other volunteers (if we have) will. I think I didn't say "for free". Yes, it would be a new chain, we, the founders, will have all rights reserved, except that some social consensuses (if any) and legal limitations (if any) that we need to follow.
So wile I and seemingly you are ready to start working on this for free, I would feel much better if we had some more solid plan regarding the future financing of the project. While "if it starts successfully, we can later on run workers on the dShares" is a plan, but a plan not good enough in my oppinion. And not because I have wasted my own time, but more because I have not given the project enough chance to succeed. In particular I do not consider just diluting Bitshares [or dShares] by worker proposals 'financing the development'.I'm going to set default witness pay and the cap of worker payment to zero. Or maybe change related code entirely. My idea is to pay what we're able to afford, or say, pay from income. Pay by ourUSD but not shares. If no income, no payment. Will you accept this? Anyway we define the rule first (at least before asking for any external fund). Less change is better.
For me it should work something like this - real investor is found. He pays the devs in cash (so they can live). The worker proposal is for ( actual cost to develop * 1.33 ) and the worker pay is locked (for 1.5-2 years; ); the investor recieves those new shares after said 1.5 year. Selling those worker pays in the DEX in some sort of "Worker Backed Assets" is a interesting possibility, but then again the feature itself requires development (money) in itself.This looks like a good idea. I haven't totally thought through it though. It's not urgent imo, unless you need to fund yourself in this way.
* 'pragmatic man's approach' is probably a better term - it cuts the fancy [and more difficult to implement] and not particularly useful stuff out; while also keeping the possibility to pays the fees directly.Looking forward to hearing more from you. Maybe PM?
Anyway, those are some of my current thoughts. Your (and anybody else take) on those issues is welcomed.
The main issue I think is: if the price of shares dropped too quickly, when 50% of the collateral (100% of the bridge provided) is unable to sold out or not enough to close the position (aka the black swain event), what can the system do? Lock up?Or maybe this split the difference. The bond puts up half of the collateral and pool the other half. Profits are split 50/50 for asset sells.
No actually it seems in order to align the risk/reward profiles:
Negative price movement (aka BTS price going down in comparison to BTC):
- the bridge should get 100% of the loss due to price movement .(its position is fully hedged so no real loss)
- collateral sponsors should get just a flat fee (or interest).
- Every attempt should be made to liquidated before 100% of bridges collateral is needed to cover any loss on the 'short bitBTC' position.
Positive price movement (aka BTS price going up in comparison to BTC):
- the collateral sponsors should get 100% of the profit due to price movement .(bridge's position is fully hedged so no gains expected, or deserved)
- The bridge can get the fee the sponsors get in the opposite scenario (just a thought).
This sounds too good to be true actually. Wish somebody can check/verify the above!!! @arhag (wish you are around) @theoretical (wish you are not busy coding 100% of the time)
Technical implementation and who controls (able to willing close) the position, are big remaining issues. Seems that the position should be controlled by the bridge, and force liquidated by the blockchain.
@tonykA. Yes, we can make them non-tradable on exchanges! What we cannot prevent is the exchanges coming with derivatives on top of BTS to trade. And while in the current state it seems unlikely an exchange to go through the hoops to do that, it will mean something if they go through that trouble one day, doesn't it.
A. You simply cannot make BTS untradable on centralized exchange. This proposal will simply give one exchange, or a small combination of exchanges, a stranglehold on the exchange of BTS. The first exchange that puts in the work to develop the backend for BTS exchange will gain a quasi monopoly. Thus, Bitshares could end up worse off from this proposal... going from traded on many exchanges to one or a few exchanges.
B. You cannot simply make bitUSD the "main" smartcoin that is traded against BTS. Some people, specifically China and Euros may prefer bitEUR or bitCNY. This proposal effectively fragments the main BTS/BTC market into several (possibly many) smaller markets.
Thus, each market separately will have a smaller amount of liquidity than if we were to continue BTS/BTC being the main market... possibly much less depending on how many smart coins are used in this manner and the popularity of other smart coins other than bitUSD. It is a possibility that to get the best price on BTS you would have to buy 3 different smartcoins, then trade all of them for BTS.
C. It is unclear to me how you plan to pay worker proposals and such in bitUSD without autonomously shorting bitUSD into existance or printing unbacked bitUSD. Several community members are vicously against such practices, as I found out when I brought up my proposal.
D. Even with creating a separate asset, and not freezing BTS, I still see a lot of issues arising from the transition period. What would be the value of the original BTS tokens, if anything? What happens when people purchase these tokens after the transition period thinking that they are receiving equity in Bitshares ecosystem?
There are other issues that I can think of that may arise, as mentioned in my first post, but I don't have have time to explain.
I'm going to set default witness pay and the cap of worker payment to zero. Or maybe change related code entirely. My idea is to pay what we're able to afford, or say, pay from income. Pay by ourUSD but not shares. If no income, no payment. Will you accept this? Anyway we define the rule first (at least before asking for any external fund). Less change is better."pay what we're able to afford, or say, pay from income"
Or maybe this split the difference. The bond puts up half of the collateral and pool the other half. Profits are split 50/50 for asset sells.
No actually it seems in order to align the risk/reward profiles:
Negative price movement (aka BTS price going down in comparison to BTC):
- the bridge should get 100% of the loss due to price movement .(its position is fully hedged so no real loss)
- collateral sponsors should get just a flat fee (or interest).
- Every attempt should be made to liquidated before 100% of bridges collateral is needed to cover any loss on the 'short bitBTC' position.
Positive price movement (aka BTS price going up in comparison to BTC):
- the collateral sponsors should get 100% of the profit due to price movement .(bridge's position is fully hedged so no gains expected, or deserved)
- The bridge can get the fee the sponsors get in the opposite scenario (just a thought).
This sounds too good to be true actually. Wish somebody can check/verify the above!!! @arhag (wish you are around) @theoretical (wish you are not busy coding 100% of the time)
Technical implementation and who controls (able to willing close) the position, are big remaining issues. Seems that the position should be controlled by the bridge, and force liquidated by the blockchain.
A. You misunderstood what I was saying and pretty much repeated the same thing I said, but added sunny skies and rainbows. Someone that wanted to monopolize the BTS volume traded on centralized exchanges may come along sooner than you think, and there is no way of stopping them.
Important points:
In case of liquidation the collateral provided by the bridge is used to cover the losses (if any) first [before the collateral from the 'collateral sponsor'] .
The loss for the bridge is fictional BTW. That loss is exactly offset by the same gain of holding BTC received by the customer requesting the bridge from BTC to bitBTC.
In this case you earn some profit indeed, since the 1bitBTC you bought can buy more shares now if you haven't bought earlier. It's the one who provided this 1 bitBTC bear the risk, if it's you, you can easily close the position without loss.Important points:
In case of liquidation the collateral provided by the bridge is used to cover the losses (if any) first [before the collateral from the 'collateral sponsor'] .
The loss for the bridge is fictional BTW. That loss is exactly offset by the same gain of holding BTC received by the customer requesting the bridge from BTC to bitBTC.
I don't think the loss is fictional - If a customer sells us 1 bitBTC, and then the price of BTS drops, we start to incur liquidation risk as the value of the collateral drops, whereas the customer does not, since we sent him 1 genuine BTC.
No responses whatsoever?Tony, I replied earlier. Did you see it?
In this case you earn some profit indeed, since the 1bitBTC you bought can buy more shares now if you haven't bought earlier. It's the one who provided this 1 bitBTC bear the risk, if it's you, you can easily close the position without loss.
A. You misunderstood what I was saying and pretty much repeated the same thing I said, but added sunny skies and rainbows. Someone that wanted to monopolize the BTS volume traded on centralized exchanges may come along sooner than you think, and there is no way of stopping them.
How are they going to do that when you cannot transfer the asset?
A. You misunderstood what I was saying and pretty much repeated the same thing I said, but added sunny skies and rainbows. Someone that wanted to monopolize the BTS volume traded on centralized exchanges may come along sooner than you think, and there is no way of stopping them.
How are they going to do that when you cannot transfer the asset?
holding bitAssets like any indivindual?No?
Ok, that makes sense. So now the question is, why is no one doing any of this instant arbitrage between the various versions of the same assets on the DEX? Without that, instead of realizing the promise of pooled liquidity, we're mired in a shit storm of duplicate assets that is making the DEX unusable for most people.
They cannot. This would need the blockchain to perform this operation atomically and react instantly. It would be like a built in HFT trader the dividends of which get distributed to BTS holders.
A. You misunderstood what I was saying and pretty much repeated the same thing I said, but added sunny skies and rainbows. Someone that wanted to monopolize the BTS volume traded on centralized exchanges may come along sooner than you think, and there is no way of stopping them.
How are they going to do that when you cannot transfer the asset?
The answer also depends on what you consider the main benefits of the new approach. If you find that what it does for the bitAssets is the main benefit, why first wait on inferior version of bitAsset to take off before implementing the superior?
What does transferability of BTS have to do with whether an external exchange can allow its users to trade BTS on their exchange? All the exchange has to do is purchase BTS in their own wallet and issue EXCHANGE.BTS tokens to their users to trade on their own platform, exactly as they do now. What am I missing?
Ok, that makes sense. So now the question is, why is no one doing any of this instant arbitrage between the various versions of the same assets on the DEX? Without that, instead of realizing the promise of pooled liquidity, we're mired in a shit storm of duplicate assets that is making the DEX unusable for most people.
They cannot. This would need the blockchain to perform this operation atomically and react instantly. It would be like a built in HFT trader the dividends of which get distributed to BTS holders.
Ok, but apart from the atomic operations you refer to, shouldn't trading only on the DEX allow for MUCH easier arbitrage for any liquidity provider given they don't have to deal with slow deposits/withdrawals between their wallet and their account at the exchange?
What does transferability of BTS have to do with whether an external exchange can allow its users to trade BTS on their exchange? All the exchange has to do is purchase BTS in their own wallet and issue EXCHANGE.BTS tokens to their users to trade on their own platform, exactly as they do now. What am I missing?
So, users arrive on this exchange - how do they deposit their BTS? How do they withdraw it? Walk me through the process.
The answer also depends on what you consider the main benefits of the new approach. If you find that what it does for the bitAssets is the main benefit, why first wait on inferior version of bitAsset to take off before implementing the superior?
I think the point is that it's too risky at the moment to make such a change to Bitshares. And a new chain would be DOA (that means dead on arrival, tony). So right now we should concentrate on getting BitAssets moving in the right direction, taking liquidity measures that can be taken now, giving the entire system a chance to become more robust with a lively internal market for BTS, and a much more active DEX in general. Then we'll be in a better position to create your perfect peg and take BitAssets to the next level. You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk!
Sure. Users send their BTC to Poloniex, for example, and purchase POLO.BTS. They can trade in and out of it. Why do they need to transfer BTS? They just want to trade.
No, I saw it but it was about the black swan. Black swan are a problem for bitAssets in general and as we deal with such assets they do apply but are not specifically caused by what I suggested. I was asking for comments about problems caused by proposal or in connection with its design.No responses whatsoever?Tony, I replied earlier. Did you see it?
Wait a minute. I am not trying to solve all bridges issues real or perceived. For example I cannot help if a bridge is reluctant to hold BTS or BTC. In your example above it is easy - you close your short with the bitBTC received and you end up with pure BTS. If this somehow is a problem for the bridge I cannot help.Important points:
In case of liquidation the collateral provided by the bridge is used to cover the losses (if any) first [before the collateral from the 'collateral sponsor'] .
The loss for the bridge is fictional BTW. That loss is exactly offset by the same gain of holding BTC received by the customer requesting the bridge from BTC to bitBTC.
I don't think the loss is fictional - If a customer sells us 1 bitBTC, and then the price of BTS drops, we start to incur liquidation risk as the value of the collateral drops, whereas the customer does not, since we sent him 1 genuine BTC.
Just comes one idea. If we can provide CFD style 100% collateral backed asset, why we need 200%? In any case except a black swan event, the rest 100% is not changed thus unnecessary. With 100% collateral you can afford 50% price drop, with 200% collateral you can afford 75% price drop, both are not 100% safe.
What I am trying to solve with the collateral sponsors proposal is - the need for the bridges to come up with 2x in BTS for collateral when a customer wants to go from BTC into bitBTC. Isn't this the main reason why no bridge - you or anybody else even thinks about providing BTC->bitBTC bridge? The proposal effectively locks as much BTS as if you sold BTS for the BTC received at the current price and nothing more. Isn't this a good deal. This is effectively equal to what happen if it was a bridge for BTS<->BTC.
Isn't this the main reason why no bridge - you or anybody else even thinks about providing BTC->bitBTC bridge? The proposal effectively locks as much BTS as if you sold BTS for the BTC received at the current price and nothing more. Isn't this a good deal. This is effectively equal to what happen if it was a bridge for BTS<->BTC.
You could count on my support to run a witness node, or even host a webwallet and faucet. In fact if one of the current bridges is not interested in supporting the new chain, then I would be more than willing to work to develop a bridge between other crypto and this new chain. I could not touch fiat unfortunately.Actually I translated you concerns to exactly that form after your initial post. Self-chaining I call it. But I do believe you can treat the current system as self-chained as well. BTS is backing the value of bitUSD and the value of BTS is derived from bitUSD being valuable and useful.
I still have concerns, but I think it would be a really great experiment, and if my concerns are unfounded then it would be a superior implementation than the current system.
I think I have found a better way to express my concern as well. In the current system bitUSD is a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. Since this BTS can currently be sold, anyone wishing to exit bitshares can sell BTS directly. Thus someone who is long bitUSD, that wants to exit bitshares will sell their bitUSD for BTS and convert their BTS to whatever other currency they wish. There are two distinct markets. We have a derivative tied to USD and a backing asset that is not tied to USD.
Under this proposal bitUSD would still be a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. However because BTS can not be traded for actual other currencies, in effect the backing asset would be the externally trading asset. We would end up with a derivative that is backed by itself. I cannot view such a system as stable.
Let me preface this by saying if I end up on this new chain with any significant stake (I consider 0.5% significant for this purpose) I will take the opposite approach of BM's. In this case, by putting my money where my mouth is, I mean I will use my stake to short dUSD in existence and slowly release it into the market at current market rate, probably in a period of several months.I don't think this enforcement is a good idea. People may have no enough time to take care of the position. We can encourage co-op members to be more responsible by rewards from income even dilution, but it's hard to measure how responsible the member is. The 10% enforce of collateral is useless if the created native currency will never been used, for example if a stake holder is not a day user of the system.
So here is the question:
What is you reaction to adding one more obligation to the 'responsible co-op member'. In order to help the co-op's progress and smooth operation every member should help by helping provide some of the native currency. The blockchain enforced min being say 10% of the stake being in collateral. NB no need to actually sell those bitUSD. The believe here is that by having them people will tend to spend them for- transfer/trade fees, membership upgrades??? (I am not even sure we will keep those. Will we?), UIA's etc.
I'd love to compare two alternative universes in the future - one with the change implemented and one without...
Hey @tonykHave you considered dropping the fungibility of bitAssets for your new chain
Have you considered dropping the fungibility of bitAssets for your new chain, and instead go for a metatrader4 compatible platform? That would make it distinct enough from bitshares and would attract a lot of interest from the forex community.
edit: I think you might struggle to raise funding for development otherwise, because to the outside world, your existing proposition looks very similar to bitshares indeed.
Cheers, Paul.
1. It is not MY new chain... it is OUR new chain...
1. It is not MY new chain... it is OUR new chain...
Why not start a new thread with a poll of how the community wants to move this idea to?
So here is the question:
What is you reaction to adding one more obligation to the 'responsible co-op member'. In order to help the co-op's progress and smooth operation every member should help by helping provide some of the native currency. The blockchain enforced min being say 10% of the stake being in collateral. NB no need to actually sell those bitUSD. The believe here is that by having them people will tend to spend them for- transfer/trade fees, membership upgrades??? (I am not even sure we will keep those. Will we?), UIA's etc.
What does tonyk's idea make sense for me?
Because it removes the illusion that our DEX is able to compete with CEX (Centralized EXchange).
Why will DEX always lose out with CEX?
CEX has the advantage of knowing the complete order-book, including short positions. By actively trading using this insider knowledge, the owner of CEX has an extra revenue stream, which DEX will never have.
And if a significant part of this extra income is used to prop up liquidity, CEX will always attract more people, as it has bigger financial power and it can offer better liquidity than DEX.
DEX is not able to cheat on its customers (by having access to the knowledge they do not have), and as most customers are not able to detect this cheating, they accept it as part of the game, and as a result CEX has an unfair competitive advantage.
For me tonyk's idea is smart because it eliminates this unfair competition.
Why not fork and share drop?
Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.That's a very good point.
Look what is currently happening to ETH.
A couple of big traders are manipulating the market
Why not fork and share drop?
It would be direct competitor to Bitshares. It would divide resources, developers, funding, etc so it's best to avoid forking if possible.
Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.That's a very good point.
It would better do that. This was one of the problems attempted to be solved by this thing... I thought I have a line about it in the OP? Hmm, apparently not.Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.That's a very good point.
+5% +5% +5%
It would better do that. This was one of the problems attempted to be solved by this thing... I thought I have a line about it in the OP? Hmm, apparently not.Keeping BTS on the internal exchange would also take care of the issue where 3rd party exchanges vote or do not vote with user stake.That's a very good point.
+5% +5% +5%
BTS could still be traded on external exchanges as they are today. The key difference is you wouldn't be able to withdraw funds in BTS. ...They could more or less implement this by simply turning off BTS withdraw but leaving on BitAsset withdraws.
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
What the hell are you talking about? Why would they have to do anything different than what they are ALREADY doing to enable their users to trade POLONIEX.BTS IOU tokens? As @Riverhead already pointed out, the only thing Poloniex would have to do is remove BTS from their withdrawal page, leaving BitUSD/BitCNY (and perhaps BTC if we get a sidechain going) as the only options to get funds onto the DEX from Poloniex.
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
It'd be rather peculiar if centralized exchanges ended up with, rather than BTS IOU, a token pegged to the value of BTS called... I don't know... bitBTS!
bitBTS - transferable, but without any of the benefits of BTS (voting power, enabling free transactions, sharedrop target etc.)...
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
It'd be rather peculiar if centralized exchanges ended up with, rather than BTS IOU, a token pegged to the value of BTS called... I don't know... bitBTS!
bitBTS - transferable, but without any of the benefits of BTS (voting power, enabling free transactions, sharedrop target etc.)...
When a user wants to withdraw this to get the equivalent to their BTS account it wouldnt be possible because there can't be transfers according to the OP. They need to go to the orderbook first and as such there is no guarantee you can get them.
So it depends whether crypto traders & speculators would rather stay & trade a BTS IOU on Polo/BTC38 (where they can move in and out of their other crypto positions easily but have a higher risk of loss) or whether they'd rather go through the new, additional BitUSD barrier which possibly increases friction, cost (BitUSD spread) & complexity to get onto the DEX and vice versa.
It's possible, crypto traders & speculators would be more reluctant to move their positions off the centralized exchanges regularly, which could result in less use of the DEX and increased voting power for exchanges. (Who would hold real BTS to back up their BTS IOU.) ?
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
It'd be rather peculiar if centralized exchanges ended up with, rather than BTS IOU, a token pegged to the value of BTS called... I don't know... bitBTS!
bitBTS - transferable, but without any of the benefits of BTS (voting power, enabling free transactions, sharedrop target etc.)...
When a user wants to withdraw this to get the equivalent to their BTS account it wouldnt be possible because there can't be transfers according to the OP. They need to go to the orderbook first and as such there is no guarantee you can get them.
There would be no transfers of BTS, but there could be transfers of a BitShares smartcoin such as bitBTS.
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
Cool, thanks. That's good if not's very practical.Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
Cool, thanks. That's good if not's very practical.Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
The cat is already out of the bag as it were. I don't think BTS can be made non transferable now that it's out in the free market. It could be the seed idea for a BTS fork project though. CoopShares?
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
It'd be rather peculiar if centralized exchanges ended up with, rather than BTS IOU, a token pegged to the value of BTS called... I don't know... bitBTS!
bitBTS - transferable, but without any of the benefits of BTS (voting power, enabling free transactions, sharedrop target etc.)...
When a user wants to withdraw this to get the equivalent to their BTS account it wouldnt be possible because there can't be transfers according to the OP. They need to go to the orderbook first and as such there is no guarantee you can get them.
There would be no transfers of BTS, but there could be transfers of a BitShares smartcoin such as bitBTS.
and how would users claim them for the original? they wouldn't. Would they peg it to the original bts? Otherwise since they would have more volume they would be the ones setting the price, which wouldn't even make sense. Might as well call it any other name.
and how would users claim them for the original? they wouldn't.Correct. I wasn't meaning for them to be able to.
Would they peg it to the original bts?bitBTS would be a BitShares asset pegged to (and backed by) tonyk's non-transferable BTS.
Cool, thanks. That's good if not's very practical.Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
The cat is already out of the bag as it were. I don't think BTS can be made non transferable now that it's out in the free market. It could be the seed idea for a BTS fork project though. CoopShares?
Riverhead says it's possible for exchanges to issue an BTS IOU...
It's possible, but not practical. Each exchange would have to buy a massive stake in BTS just to do this; to fund their IOUs which they have to convert from user's bitcoin deposits. This is a huge undertaking for them and a big risk; IMO, they just won't do it.
What the hell are you talking about? Why would they have to do anything different than what they are ALREADY doing to enable their users to trade POLONIEX.BTS IOU tokens? As @Riverhead already pointed out, the only thing Poloniex would have to do is remove BTS from their withdrawal page, leaving BitUSD/BitCNY (and perhaps BTC if we get a sidechain going) as the only options to get funds onto the DEX from Poloniex.
This was my first reaction but read the OP again, there can't be transfers to accounts, they can only be traded on orderbooks. People would have no guarantee to get their bts back if Polo used them for that. Meaning they would need to take it out first. Then Polo would have no BTS unless they bought them themselves.
I hope someone decides to fork the project, sharedrop on the BTS chain, implement this idea and focus on stabilizing what we already have. Looking at the tech we already have, I don't see why that second chain can't be successful and still compliment BTS efforts.
@tbone While a 3rd party could trade an IOU, there has been mention of paying a BTS holder a dividend. This could not be replicated outside the DEX.
What the hell are you talking about? Why would they have to do anything different than what they are ALREADY doing to enable their users to trade POLONIEX.BTS IOU tokens?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's a given that BTS cannot be transferred in the OP scenario. But user will still be able to transfer BTC to Poloniex and trade a POLO.BTS token. They'll also still be able to move funds from Poloniex to the DEX by buying BitUSD (or BitCNY) and then transfering THAT to the DEX. Sure, it would be less practical for users, but that just means fewer people moving funds to the DEX. And from Poloniex's standpoint there would be NO CHANGE, other than disabling BTS transfers on their withdrawal page.
I think tonyk's idea is the most ground-breaking invention that has happened since BitShares was conceived, as it makes the whole concept logically complete.
Or we need a fiat ramps that allow you buy bts directly. Until that happens bts will be a 2nd order token and the assets that depend on it 3rd order tokens.
(2) Some people here seem to be concerned that making BTS non-transferable will cause too much "friction" for traders to bother with trading BTS.
OK, if we assume that this two-step process of acquiring BTS is too much hassle, how do we expect anyone to use e.g. bitBTC?
Using bitBTC requires three steps: if you want to buy n BTC with m USD, first you buy m-USD-worth of BTS (a.k.a. bitUSD), next with your bitUSD you buy n-BTC-worth of BTS (a.k.a. bitBTC) and finally you buy real BTC with your bitBTC. This is a three -step process which was the foundation of BitShares DEX two years ago. Everybody who got attracted to BitShares, must have thought this was the ultimate solution for trading crypto-currencies.
Now tonyk suggests we apply a similar logic for BTS: if you want to buy n BTS with m USD, first you buy m-USD-worth of BTS (a.k.a. bitUSD) and then you buy real BTS with your bitUSD. A two-step process, very similar to the one we propose for bitBTC trading.
@jakub do you have the link to coinhoarders post with the concept?https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21197.msg276084.html#msg276084
Liquidity is king.
Charging Fees hurts liquidity.
Providing Negative Fees will boost liquidity.
If you REALLY want to bootstrap liquidity on the DEX then we should consider eliminating all trading fees and subsidising liquidity like crazy.
Liquidity is king.
Charging Fees hurts liquidity.
Providing Negative Fees will boost liquidity.
If you REALLY want to bootstrap liquidity on the DEX then we should consider eliminating all trading fees and subsidising liquidity like crazy.
Presumably people would just trade with themselves especially during the lowest activity/volume times?
I'd rather subsidize liquidity though than commit to paying a share of future fees which MAKER requires (MAKER locks us into a long term cost that may not solve the problem long term and also I presume commits us to charging fees on that asset in the future which will be paying for past services rendered.)
I'm also not sure the current construct where a BitAsset needs a BTS short to be created is ideal because how close shorts are willing to come to the peg has a lot to do with BTS medium to long term price expectations imo but if we kept the current construct, I'd probably look to subsidize shorts with high short term interest while BTS medium term price expectations were muted, though the current construct probably enables yield harvesting it would at least be halved by having to have a long position too.
Shorts also currently have the burden of forced settlement. If it isn't already at 99% or slightly lower, I'd adjust that to.
Liquidity is king.
Charging Fees hurts liquidity.
Providing Negative Fees will boost liquidity.
If you REALLY want to bootstrap liquidity on the DEX then we should consider eliminating all trading fees and subsidising liquidity like crazy.
Presumably people would just trade with themselves especially during the lowest activity/volume times?
I'd rather subsidize liquidity though than commit to paying a share of future fees which MAKER requires (MAKER locks us into a long term cost that may not solve the problem long term and also I presume commits us to charging fees on that asset in the future which will be paying for past services rendered.)
I'm also not sure the current construct where a BitAsset needs a BTS short to be created is ideal because how close shorts are willing to come to the peg has a lot to do with BTS medium to long term price expectations imo but if we kept the current construct, I'd probably look to subsidize shorts with high short term interest while BTS medium term price expectations were muted, though the current construct probably enables yield harvesting it would at least be halved by having to have a long position too.
Shorts also currently have the burden of forced settlement. If it isn't already at 99% or slightly lower, I'd adjust that to.
I don't think @bytemaster was necessarily referring to MAKER above. He just said we should use "negative fees" to incentivize liquidity. We should do that, assuming we can truly prevent people from trading with themselves. But I agree with you, we should NOT reward liquidity providers with a share of FUTURE fees. That is just way too open ended and would likely prevent us from having the flexibility to redirect liquidity incentives from one market to another as needed over time.
As far as I can see, creation of bitBTS would be practical way of doing the transition smoothly. Exchanges could change their BTS stack to bitBTS, which their customers could transfer to themselves freely. Customers of exchanges wouldn't lose anything because they have already given up a possibility to vote by storing their BTS in the exchange. Value of their holdings would remain same, because bitBTS is naturally backed with 100 % of BTS and could be force settled anytime in the Bitshares blockchain. Tonyk, any thoughts on this?If I understood correctly, force settlement feature won't exist in tonyk's new chain, since it's against the market rules.
Technically it should stay. For example, because of how prediction market are set to work now (i.e. the longs claiming their successful predictions.) Its applicability, usefulnesses and serving the main reason it was implemented is another story. Likely it should be disabled for BTS collateral.As far as I can see, creation of bitBTS would be practical way of doing the transition smoothly. Exchanges could change their BTS stack to bitBTS, which their customers could transfer to themselves freely. Customers of exchanges wouldn't lose anything because they have already given up a possibility to vote by storing their BTS in the exchange. Value of their holdings would remain same, because bitBTS is naturally backed with 100 % of BTS and could be force settled anytime in the Bitshares blockchain. Tonyk, any thoughts on this?If I understood correctly, force settlement feature won't exist in tonyk's new chain, since it's against the market rules.
interest-like dividend; shareholders dividend; development fund; reserve fund; *X fund (reserved for something we might come up in the future)Consider witness pay please.
Each of those 4 (the % going to them) are adjustable by the comittie (or direct vote by stakeholders...one day)
Staring parameters(while dShares is young - we do not have much fees and we still have some dev,funds from the kick-starter)
interest-like dividend 1/5; shareholders dividend 4/5; development fund 0%; reserve fund 0%; *X fund 0%
Actually they are first before anything else, [using newly issued shares]. I think their income should be there garanteed, regardless of profit.interest-like dividend; shareholders dividend; development fund; reserve fund; *X fund (reserved for something we might come up in the future)Consider witness pay please.
Each of those 4 (the % going to them) are adjustable by the comittie (or direct vote by stakeholders...one day)
Staring parameters(while dShares is young - we do not have much fees and we still have some dev,funds from the kick-starter)
interest-like dividend 1/5; shareholders dividend 4/5; development fund 0%; reserve fund 0%; *X fund 0%
I've read through this whole post, and unless I've missed or over read something; I'm still not seeing how Bts value is derived in this situation. Which is the foundation to the whole system. Essentially your putting the BTS genie back in the bottle and claiming it to be non transferable, thus it can only be accumulated via the sale of a bit asset, that's backed by BTS.why does it have to be outside exchange for the price to be considered valid? Do you think trading on the dex the price is somehow manipulated, not real or what.
So in other words, by locking up bts in this way there is no external metric to value BTS. Yes you can argue the fact that metric is derived from a bitUSD purchase from an external exchange, but how do I know (as an outsider) that if I buy this bitUSD I'm getting the correct value of BTS as backing collateral?
Here's another way to view this...
Let's say Google wants to create Googledollar, and the Google dollar is backed by it's companies share (let's say 20 shares to create its Google dollar).
Then one day a potential Google dollar buyer comes along...
"Hey, I'd like to purchase your Google dollar"...
Google says... "cool, that'll be $1USD for every Google dollar and each Google dollar is backed by 20 Google shares"
Buyer says... "ok, so your company shares are worth 5 cents each?"
Google... "yes they are"
Buyer... "ok, so where did you get that figure from?"
Google... "from the exchange"
Buyer..."hmm, ok. I've never seen your stock on the NYSE?"
Google.... "yes, you're correct. Our stock is only exchanged on our servers located upstairs and we don't allow or shares to be traded elsewhere."
Buyer... "ok, so how can you claim your company stock is worth 5 cents each if it's not being publicly traded, just because you says so due to activate on your internal servers?"
Do you see where I'm getting at?
Tbh, I've thought about this type of set up in the past (locking up BTS in the DeX) but it always boiled down to "what give BTS value?" to justify it as collateral.
So in some way, shape or form... BTS needs to be able to establish its own price, through out side forces, too be justified as collateral backing... Which this system relies on for any of its bit assets.
So if anyone could help me understand any missing components that I'm not taking into consideration I'd appreciate it!
That's my point.I've read through this whole post, and unless I've missed or over read something; I'm still not seeing how Bts value is derived in this situation. Which is the foundation to the whole system. Essentially your putting the BTS genie back in the bottle and claiming it to be non transferable, thus it can only be accumulated via the sale of a bit asset, that's backed by BTS.why does it have to be outside exchange to consider the price valid? Do you think trading on the dex the price is somehow manipulated, not real or what.
So in other words, by locking up bts in this way there is no external metric to value BTS. Yes you can argue the fact that metric is derived from a bitUSD purchase from an external exchange, but how do I know (as an outsider) that if I buy this bitUSD I'm getting the correct value of BTS as backing collateral?
Here's another way to view this...
Let's say Google wants to create Googledollar, and the Google dollar is backed by it's companies share (let's say 20 shares to create its Google dollar).
Then one day a potential Google dollar buyer comes along...
"Hey, I'd like to purchase your Google dollar"...
Google says... "cool, that'll be $1USD for every Google dollar and each Google dollar is backed by 20 Google shares"
Buyer says... "ok, so your company shares are worth 5 cents each?"
Google... "yes they are"
Buyer... "ok, so where did you get that figure from?"
Google... "from the exchange"
Buyer..."hmm, ok. I've never seen your stock on the NYSE?"
Google.... "yes, you're correct. Our stock is only exchanged on our servers located upstairs and we don't allow or shares to be traded elsewhere."
Buyer... "ok, so how can you claim your company stock is worth 5 cents each if it's not being publicly traded, just because you says so due to activate on your internal servers?"
Do you see where I'm getting at?
Tbh, I've thought about this type of set up in the past (locking up BTS in the DeX) but it always boiled down to "what give BTS value?" to justify it as collateral.
So in some way, shape or form... BTS needs to be able to establish its own price, through out side forces, too be justified as collateral backing... Which this system relies on for any of its bit assets.
So if anyone could help me understand any missing components that I'm not taking into consideration I'd appreciate it!
And money being backed by companies shares with minimum of 1.75 value beats the hell out of money backed by nothing... nothing other than government debt that is..
PS
But do not trust me on that, wait for tbone to confirm first that this is not totally idiotic!!!
That's my point.
1.75 value of what? Company shares. O.k. What proof can you show me that the company share is worth anything at all?
I'm not trying to poo poo the ideas here, they are all great. But this is one very big component that hasn't been discussed. Like I said, this is the whole foundation to the whole system. Until this one fact can be determined without a shadow of a doubt, then it's a moot point.
That's my point.
1.75 value of what? Company shares. O.k. What proof can you show me that the company share is worth anything at all?
I'm not trying to poo poo the ideas here, they are all great. But this is one very big component that hasn't been discussed. Like I said, this is the whole foundation to the whole system. Until this one fact can be determined without a shadow of a doubt, then it's a moot point.
How that differs greatly from BTS?
Ohh wait, they also consider income the fees paid in BTS, to evaluate the worthiness of BTS, to back its bitAssets. One more level of self chaining, IMHO.
I agree AJ. It seems like circular reasoning to me. Who or what factors determine how many BTS it takes to equal 1 BitUSD?
How is that established when the chain is launched? How is the peg maintained?
Imo, to consider a valid, established BTS price, yes there has to be some way to directly purchase BTS. Either through an exchange, fiat gateway or some other avenue.
With this proposed structure, that option is off the table. Hence, giving BTS a indirect value instead of an actual value.
Which in turn undermines the collateral argument when it comes to bit assets.
I don't see the DeX as being manipulative towards BTS pricing, but we don't have the volume of users either to justify it as public for making the argument valid.
I've been wondering if there would be any benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:
- BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
- BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)
Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.
Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".
I've been wondering if there would be any benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:
- BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
- BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)
Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.
Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".
Interesting. and if we manage to get to say 66% converted to non-transferable state, we can switch off the feed and go to market (DEX) pegged assets.
I've been wondering if there would be any benefit from changing BTS such that it can be put in either of two states. Switching between the two states could incur a fee (possibly much cheaper or free in one direction).
The two states:
- BTS is non-transferable and can receive many benefits which may exist (like voting power, building up coin-days for an account to send bitassets, being a sharedrop target, receiving dividends etc.)
- BTS is transferable, but doesn't receive the host of possible benefits (more of which could exist in the future)
Although this compromise would miss the main benefit of tonyk's idea, I think it has it's advantages. It would reward people who wish to hold BTS as though it were a share and possibly incentivize people to do this. The voting power would lie more with people who hodl.
Sorry - I don't have time to delve into this at the moment, so for now let me just ask, "Does this idea have enough merit to consider any of it's aspects seriously?".
Interesting. and if we manage to get to say 66% converted to non-transferable state, we can switch off the feed and go to market (DEX) pegged assets.
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.
Mostly caught up on this thread...
It's a smart idea with many benefits. If I understand correctly, the only change required to make this happen is to simply disallow transfers of asset 1.3.0 (core asset).. this could theoretically be accomplished by adding a single line of code, no? (assert asset_id != 1.3.0 for transfer_op)
But I don't think it's wise to create a fork and fragment our resources at this point.. is some form of hybrid approach/compromise? For example.. I threw out the idea a while back to create a separate BTSVOTE token and sharedrop it 1:1 on BTS. BTS would no longer be used for voting, and exchanges could sell their BTSVOTE tokens to whoever valued them more. This way, they would be fairly compensated for giving up their ability to vote. (Not that I think this is necessarily practical but more of a thought experiment)
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.
We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.
This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.
Not exactly. Remember, the goal is not to disable transfers. The goal is simply to get the DEX to be the dominant market for trading BTS. And that's exactly what is going to occur over time. With the proper incentives, a growing number of people will begin to trade BTS on the DEX. As that happens, and along with other measures taken, liquidity will grow, the peg will tighten, even more people will trade on the DEX, the peg will tighten further, and so on through the virtuous cycle until the dominant market for BTS is on the DEX.
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?
I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.
I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.
Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?
I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.
I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.
Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.
And then what?? It is clear to me that we need to FIRST make it attractive for people to KEEP their shares on the DEX. Plenty of good ideas have already been bandied about. Such as only earning coin days (i.e. "free" transactions) if you keep your BTS on the DEX.
I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?
* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1
So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall
* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange
Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.
Why don't we have a one time event.. say for 60 days.. where people will be PAID to remove their orders from the exchanges back to their own accounts in preparation for the transfer cut off update?
I think two months and perhaps a small dedicated full time team just constantly every day telling everyone to do it will ensure everyone gets their balances back in their hands and then at the end of 60 days.. fork the change.
I have no idea how much to pay.. lets just say +5%.
Needs more work on the details.. but just putting it out there.
And then what?? It is clear to me that we need to FIRST make it attractive for people to KEEP their shares on the DEX. Plenty of good ideas have already been bandied about. Such as only earning coin days (i.e. "free" transactions) if you keep your BTS on the DEX.
Yah earning free transactions is genius. That will make people pull off their BTS from polo so quick... oh wait they can probably get more return just lending BTS out.
Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so. :)You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?
* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1
So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall
* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange
Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!
Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.
@abit Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so. :)Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.
Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.
Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore. It is useless. It is either a very bad idea or an idea that is just too early for BTS to grasp and realize... Assuming it is the former I have no desire my effort to improve BTS to be largely viewed as some form of attack on BTS.Your idea is not bad, but maybe you underestimated how challenging it is to get others to do the development and fork of a new chain/network.
Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore.
Any way, I will not be responding in this thread anymore. It is useless. It is either a very bad idea or an idea that is just too early for BTS to grasp and realize... Assuming it is the former I have no desire my effort to improve BTS to be largely viewed as some form of attack on BTS.