BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.2 on February 25, 2016, 03:34:58 pm
-
Theory
1. A centralized company can benefit from Sign-up/Deposit bonuses but a DAC/Alt-Coin usually can't, especially in the short term.
2. A DAC/Alt-Coin can benefit in the short and medium term from delayed bonuses such as subsidizing yield but a centralized exchange usually can't.
1. Sign-up/Deposit Bonuses or in Crypto, 'Sharedrops'
Centralized Companies: When a company decides to give away free money. Say the historic PayPal bootstrapping example or Coinbase offering lets say $20 to each new customer. Coinbase/PayPal will either have money set aside or they will have borrowed at very low interest.
Say they attract 10 000 people to that promotion, that will cost them $200 000. Provided say 1000 of those people become regular customers and they generate $201 in trading fees from them over the next 1-3 years, then that could be a positive EV investment and could also help bootstrap their exchange.
DACs/Alt-Coins: When a DAC decides to give away free money. Say the DEX decides to offer $20 to each new customer. We do not have funds set aside and we will be paying for that out of BTS shares.
BTS clearly cannot easily support $200 000 of new sell pressure so that initiative would decrease the value of BTS by much more than that, possibly many millions of dolllars of value will be lost from BTS during that promotion. (This is why you see nearly every DAC that attempts a Sharedrop/New User bonus loses most of it's value, often 90%+ and fails to bootstrap it's product and often even recover at all.)
Caveat: It's OK to sharedrop in the very beginning as a distribution method because your DAC has no value yet.
Conclusion: A DAC/DEX cannot attract users the way Coinbase/PayPal can (Because the cost of acquisition is often many multiples higher.)
2. Subsidizing Yield and Exchange liquidity
Centralized Companies: If Coinbase offered their customers a bit of yield on their balance & subsidized liquidity that promotion would represent a massive loss to them for an extended period of time with no near term benefit. (For example if they had obligations of 3% on exchange balances annually they would be losing $300 000 a year per $10 million on their exchange with no income coming in.) The more successful that promotion was, the more money would be flowing out of their business every month over the next 1-3 years. This would not be a good way for them to bootstrap their exchange.
DACs/Alt-Coins: If a DAC/Alt offered their customers a bit of yield on their balance & subsidized liquidity that promotion would need to be funded via BTS sales which would represent a loss in value (Due to BTS being sold to fund it) unless those sales were offset by equal/greater BTS demand as the result of the same promotion.
Example:
Lets say the obligations amounted to 3% per year. For every $30 000 of BTS put up for sale to fund the obligation over the next 12 months ($2500 a month) there would have been $1 000 000 in new BTS demand (To purchase the BitUSD to be entitled to that obligation) So rather than the short term valuation loss experienced with Sharedrops/Bonuses, BTS would experience very large BTS demand growth & so the promotion would rapidly increase the value of BTS in the near term.
In fact until such time as annual new BTS demand attracted by that specific promotion was less than 3% of BitAssets currently in circulation it would be a net gain to BTS.
So during the bootstrapping phase of the DEX's product life-cycle you can actually offer yield and some conservative liquidity subsidies which a centralized exchange never could.
(http://crackmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Product-Life-Cycle.jpg)
As the product matures you decrease and ultimately remove the incentives (yield and liquidity subsidies) so your monthly obligation goes down to zero.
Again, while the promotion is attracting new BTS demand there is no value loss to the DAC and once new demand is not sufficient to offset the cost of that promotion it is curtailed and the monthly obligation of BTS goes down to zero while having experienced all that net new BTS demand. (& hopefully have bootstrapped the DEX to the point that those promotions are no longer needed.)
(Not to be confused with a ponzi. In a ponzi when there is not enough new money coming in to offset obligations to previous investors it collapses because members can't be re-imbursed. In BTS, all the BitUSD previously created would still be there and be fully collateralized but the promotion which offered yield and perhaps some liquidity would be phased out. Though if you suddenly stopped a very large promotion, such as suddenly removing very high yield or lots of liquidity, some people might force settle their BitAssets and sell BTS creating downward pressure on the price. )
Conclusion: A DAC/Alt-Coin can experience a rapid short and medium term valuation increase by subsidizing yield and possibly liquidity while also bootstrapping it's product long term at the same time.
Up until now, most DACs/Alt-Coins have been attempting to bootstrap using option 1 and have experienced large losses and little bootstrapping as a result. Option 2 is the way to bootstrap a DAC imo as it increases share value & helps bootstrap the product in a way that centralized companies/exchanges can't because their shares aren't the product.
-
Fully agree. Let's see how quickly we can do this, because other teams read this Forum to get their inspiration.
-
Fully agree. Let's see how quickly we can do this, because other teams read this Forum to get their inspiration.
+100%
-
Very nice analysis. Agreed.
-
Yes, really nice analysis indeed. I'm almost at the point where I would support this wholeheartedly. Although I'd really like to hear the opinions of some of the other reasonable, rational people around here. Also, I did have a couple more questions on the other thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg281941.html#msg281941
By the way, tony claimed this proposal would cost 40% of total worker funds. But it's actually more like 33%. We can also cut the yield in half, so in that case we're looking at less than 17%. I think that's a small price to pay to help bootstrap the DEX. C'mon people, we need to take action here, otherwise we'll just fade away!
-
We could attract users like Paypal to use the DEX, only it wouldn't be the dex itself. OpenLedger is a centralized service. Have it do that per each user that registers their identity with a high tier (detailed info).
It isn't BitShares itself, but as long as they use BitShares, is all that matters. And not 10 USD but $10 worth of OPEN.BTC so they would trade it.
-
I would add that if you yield harvest during a yield promotion you get the benefit of the BTS price increase from new BTS yield seeking demand while being re-imbursed the cost & as yield harvesting is fairly circular in nature, the true cost to the DAC is probably even lower than described in this OP.
We could attract users like Paypal to use the DEX, only it wouldn't be the dex itself. OpenLedger is a centralized service. Have it do that per each user that registers their identity with a high tier (detailed info).
It isn't BitShares itself, but as long as they use BitShares, is all that matters. And not 10 USD but $10 worth of OPEN.BTC so they would trade it.
A large majority would convert it to BTC and say thanks for the free money. If Openledger has money set aside to fund the promotion it may be +EV based on how many new customers they create and how much they will earn from them in trading fees over time. However if they didn't have funds set aside and tried to absorb the short term cost through something like OBITS, they would go bust really fast imo.
-
Yes, really nice analysis indeed. I'm almost at the point where I would support this wholeheartedly. Although I'd really like to hear the opinions of some of the other reasonable, rational people around here. Also, I did have a couple more questions on the other thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg281941.html#msg281941
By the way, tony claimed this proposal would cost 40% of total worker funds. But it's actually more like 33%. We can also cut the yield in half, so in that case we're looking at less than 17%. I think that's a small price to pay to help bootstrap the DEX. C'mon people, we need to take action here, otherwise we'll just fade away!
well, 38.9 but if in your math world 38.9 is closer to 33 than 40, sure.
and why we stop ourselves at cutting the yield in halve? we can divide it by 4, 8 or even 32.
----------------------
btc yield hardly ever falls below 40%*
we for sure will beat that with 2.5% interest on bitAssests....cause we are decentralized and we have proven this beats the hell out of centralized exchanges any time.
*Interesting enough if BTC did not have that "no dilution, dilution thingy" , you know the same "hard cap total, the BTS has, and steady supply of new minted coins"... it will never have this ridiculous interest, but instead a much higher price.
But all we can do is copy the bad (like 5 years old bad, which in crypto terms is 50 or 75 years old bad)...
-
I like it. Just do it!!! +5% +5% +5%
-
You can create all kinds of FBA and UIA to sharedrop．
You will say your FBA and UIA are valueless,then where are the BTS's values ?
I approve of initiating subsidies to users ,but I object to robbing shareholders.
Why crypto fans belittle us:we loss our principle.
Who can tell me what is our principle.
-
OP makes a compelling case. Will the community rally around this idea? There is still time for BitShares to become one of the dominant chains alongside Ethereum and Bitcoin, but the window of opportunity is starting to close.
-
Do you eager for quick success?
If you are true .
Then you are losser.
Don't forget our principle.
If you forgot about it,please read it again and again:
Three Laws of Robotics for Distributed Autonomous Corporations
A DAC must always obey its own published business rules.
A DAC must never change its rules without consent of its stakeholders, except where such change would conflict with the First Law.
A DAC must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first two laws.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics#.UkVJWobxiXx
-
You can create all kinds of FBA and UIA to sharedrop．
You will say your FBA and UIA are valueless,then where are the BTS's values ?
I approve of initiating subsidies to users ,but I object to robbing shareholders.
Why crypto fans belittle us:we loss our principle.
Who can tell me what is our principle.
Robbing shareholders?? You think bootstrapping BitAssets and jump starting the DEX is robbing shareholders?? I guess you don't realize there is NO shareholder value without liquid BitAssets and people using the DEX. Also, do you understand that any shareholder can become a user so they can enjoy the "subsidies" (i.e. yield) in addition to the enhanced shareholder value? So the shareholder wins twice. Is this difficult for you to understand?
-
Don't forget our principle.
If you forgot about it,please read it again and again:
Three Laws of Robotics for Distributed Autonomous Corporations
A DAC must always obey its own published business rules.
A DAC must never change its rules without consent of its stakeholders, except where such change would conflict with the First Law.
A DAC must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first two laws.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics#.UkVJWobxiXx
This concept is within the BTS business rules and it would also need the consent of stakeholders anyway, so I don't see how it goes against those principles?
-
@Empirical, I asked @fuzzy (see link below) to put your idea on the agenda for today's mumble hangout. Will you be on hand to discuss?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21647.msg282162.html#msg282162
-
@Empirical, I asked @fuzzy (see link below) to put your idea on the agenda for today's mumble hangout. Will you be on hand to discuss?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21647.msg282162.html#msg282162
I won't unfortunately, but I'd definitely be interested to hear BM's take on it, if he's had a chance to look at it.
-
btc yield hardly ever falls below 40%*
we for sure will beat that with 2.5% interest on bitAssests....cause we are decentralized and we have proven this beats the hell out of centralized exchanges any time.
*Interesting enough if BTC did not have that "no dilution, dilution thingy" , you know the same "hard cap total, the BTS has, and steady supply of new minted coins"... it will never have this ridiculous interest, but instead a much higher price.
But all we can do is copy the bad (like 5 years old bad, which in crypto terms is 50 or 75 years old bad)...
- Yes centralized exchanges have historically had a high failure rate which must be taken into account when considering yield.
(The BTC yield is derived from BTC lending. Speeding up BitAsset adoption to the point where we could realistically support an active bond market may help us compete in that market too?)
- Bitcoin is far more volatile than USD which is why USD based products can offer very small yield but attract lots of demand.
- BTC may attract a small part of their speculative portfolio while USD with Yield may attract a small part of their USD savings, currently kept in increasingly risky banks, which already charge negative yield/interest in some countries and soon possibly many more.
-
@bytemaster made a good point in the latest hangout. Why pay interest to all bitUSD? Wouldn't it be more effective if we paid only for bitUSD that is in the orderbook?
Of course this will still create yield harvesting. People will just put their orders so far from the spot price that they will never execute. But it's still way more better than people just creating bitusd only for themselves.
One possible benefit: increased liquidity in bitUSD/fiat-USD markets (right now we have only OPEN.USD but hopefully we get more gateways in the future). Easy way to make money would be setting orders to bitUSD/OPEN.USD market for 3-5 % profit. Relative price isn't moving to anywhere so it doesn't even need a bot. In the worst case user gets only the yield, in a good case he makes also money with trading.
We should also give yield for bitCNY and bitEUR to incentivize use of OPEN.CNY and OPEN.EUR. Liquid bitasset/fiat-markets could be really great for our exchange. I bet @ccedk will love this idea!
-
People will just put their orders so far from the spot price that they will never execute.
That's why he also proposed some min-max limitations like 10mins 24h
Orders from traders that are geting filled too early(self trading) or too late(orders far from spot price) are not rewarded.
-
@bytemaster made a good point in the latest hangout. Why pay interest to all bitUSD? Wouldn't it be more effective if we paid only for bitUSD that is in the orderbook?
Of course this will still create yield harvesting. People will just put their orders so far from the spot price that they will never execute. But it's still way more better than people just creating bitusd only for themselves.
That sounds like it would be a liquidity measure but a poor one, if as you say you could place it on the orderbook in such a way as I wouldn't get filled anyway. (Especially if you still kept forced settlement?)
In terms of paying interest for orders on the book, I would probably look to NuBits which I think incentivizes a tight range as well and achieves $50 000 of daily liquidity for circa $100. http://cybnate.github.io/index-liquidbits.html
However I think they've been discussing another measure which might be what you're referring to, if that does a good job for a reasonable cost too, great.
The point of paying variable yield on all BitUSD is to attract non trader types who ideally won't even want to see the DEX but just purchase BitUSD via a Bitcoin/Fiat bridge with the intention of holding it for 1-3 years & ultimately spend some of it on BitUSD products and services. This would attract millions of dollars in new BitUSD (BTS) demand in a way that would increase the value of BTS shares until total BitUSD in circulation increased annually by less than the variable yield %.
(When it's a worker proposal going towards yield, yield harvesting by regular shareholders isn't a bad thing either imo as it allows shareholders to mitigate the cost in way that also converts our shareholders to Smartcoin holders (The product we are trying to bootstrap), gets BTS off the centralized exchanges and a bunch of other good stuff.)
-
Brilliant post Empirical! Very clear and convincing. +5%
-
i'm still a fan of the 2.0 concept of segregating yield from the smartcoin and enabling it in a bond market. Yield is something that comes from lending money, at risk, to someone else doing something productive with it (the source of ability to repay). Paying yield for simply holding smartcoins without the accompanying lending function is sort of a dead capital concept. with 1.0 i was enamored with the idea and even thought of starting a business channeling savers into bitUSD simply to collect yield, but after a long time thinking about it and seeing lessons learned from 1.0, i think it better to stay on track with the 2.0 plan --pivoting from plans induces uncertainty, less trust in our network.
a bond market is much healthier than simply paying yield for holding smartcoins. both will help with liquidity by boosting demand for our products, but the former enables a lending at risk mechanism rewarded by yield. The borrowed funds can be used for economically productive activities. for instance, if we try my favorite idea of a Bitshares Treasury bill/bond (the system issuing these for our key markets, like USD-BTS), then we have our DAC basically borrowing funds from investors, paying yield with recycled fees from the exchanges (a source of real econ value from our core business), and the DAC can use the proceeds for valuable activities, like paying workers to improve network infrastructure.
That's just the first step. We should ultimately have the flexibility for UIBs in which anyone (ideally businesses) can borrow money by issuing bonds on our DEX.
The liquidity boosting mechanism comes from denominating the debt instruments in smartcoins.
A future business venture would naturally come from crypto banks that take bitUSD (or other) deposits and allocate them to productive activities like UIA, UIB, or Bitshares Treasury offerings, the venture performing some sort of monitoring function for savers.
-
If you want to subsidize liquidity for a single pair, why not to try easy way first, like pooled market making? Create a dedicated market making worker, and lend him $150K worth of BTS (from reserve pool or crowd fund or both). This mm worker should issue 50K bitUSD and put a 50K wall on each side of USD:BTS book, then trade back and forth at low spread. Buy low, sell high. If the wall on either side is consumed, lend more funds and put it back. At the end of proposal period, mm should return all funds to reserve/contributors. Any profit or loss should be shared.
-
@bytemaster made a good point in the latest hangout. Why pay interest to all bitUSD? Wouldn't it be more effective if we paid only for bitUSD that is in the orderbook?
Of course this will still create yield harvesting. People will just put their orders so far from the spot price that they will never execute. But it's still way more better than people just creating bitusd only for themselves.
That sounds like it would be a liquidity measure but a poor one, if as you say you could place it on the orderbook in such a way as I wouldn't get filled anyway. (Especially if you still kept forced settlement?)
I meant this like a some kind of a compromise solution. It's almost like your proposal, but users have to do one more thing: put the bitUSD in the orderbook.
The point of paying variable yield on all BitUSD is to attract non trader types who ideally won't even want to see the DEX but just purchase BitUSD via a Bitcoin/Fiat bridge with the intention of holding it for 1-3 years & ultimately spend some of it on BitUSD products and services. This would attract millions of dollars in new BitUSD (BTS) demand in a way that would increase the value of BTS shares until total BitUSD in circulation increased annually by less than the variable yield %.
(When it's a worker proposal going towards yield, yield harvesting by regular shareholders isn't a bad thing either imo as it allows shareholders to mitigate the cost in way that also converts our shareholders to Smartcoin holders (The product we are trying to bootstrap), gets BTS off the centralized exchanges and a bunch of other good stuff.)
I get your point and will probably vote yes if there is going to be a worker proposal. I'm just not 100 % sure if this is a best way to act right now. Six months is a long time when we are continuously developing new features and everything is volatile. I'd rather see short term tests to see if something works or not and then decide if it's profitable to continue.
I started to think more about incentivizing fiat liquidity... In your OP you offered two choices: signup/deposit bonuses & subsidizing yield and exchange liquidity. I think we could do both of these to attract more users and create more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets.
- Signup bonuses to people who verify themselves in Openledger. It doesn't need to be a big one, because BTS price is so low that even low value sums seems big for newbies. 1000 BTS bonus for 100 first verified users would cost only 100 000 BTS.
- Deposit bonuses for users that make their first OPEN.USD/EUR/CNY deposit.
- Smartcoin yield like I mentioned in the earlier message. It's paid for smartcoins that are in the orderbook. By actively telling people that bitUSD-EUR-CNY/OPEN.USD-EUR-CNY markets are a great trade pairs to use for yield harvesting (potential profits in addition to yield) we could get quite a lot smartcoin supply in there.
The goal of this is bootstrapping fiat/smartcoin markets. We could test this first with small amounts of BTS and see what happens. If we just get people do their first deposits and put their first orders in the exchange we'll create much better chances for network effect.
-
usd-bitUSD gateway is far more important than what BitUSD Yield
-
I started to think more about incentivizing fiat liquidity... In your OP you offered two choices: signup/deposit bonuses & subsidizing yield and exchange liquidity. I think we could do both of these to attract more users and create more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets.
- Signup bonuses to people who verify themselves in Openledger. It doesn't need to be a big one, because BTS price is so low that even low value sums seems big for newbies. 1000 BTS bonus for 100 first verified users would cost only 100 000 BTS.
- Deposit bonuses for users that make their first OPEN.USD/EUR/CNY deposit.
Personally I don't think Sign-Up bonuses are a good way for a DAC to attract users/bootstrap if they have to use shares to fund it. (For example, even though our Market CAP is $10 million dollars, a $100 000 promotion for example would cost much much more in terms of the sell pressure it creates. So it's incredibly hard to make up that high cost. It's also counter-productive to bootstrapping a DAC because a declining share price will lose you more existing supporters than a bonus paid in shares to new users attracts)
There's also very few examples of give-aways or sharedrops paid for in immediately tradeable shares being done successfully.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21609.msg281549.html#msg281549
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,4155.0.html
i'm still a fan of the 2.0 concept of segregating yield from the smartcoin and enabling it in a bond market. Paying yield for simply holding smartcoins without the accompanying lending function is sort of a dead capital concept.
The concept outlined in the OP, doesn't preclude a bond market and may even help bootstrap BitAssets to the point where they could support a thriving bond market sooner.
All else being equal, would you rather hold a BitUSD that was earning yield or a BitUSD that wasn't?
Do you agree that new users receiving the BitUSD yield in future would first have to make a much larger BTS (For BitUSD) purchase today?
Lets say the obligations amounted to 3% per year. For every $30 000 of BTS put up for sale to fund the obligation over the next 12 months ($2500 a month) there would have been $1 000 000 in new BTS demand (To purchase the BitUSD to be entitled to that obligation) So rather than the short term valuation loss experienced with Sharedrops/Bonuses, BTS would experience very large BTS demand growth & so the promotion would rapidly increase the value of BTS in the near term.
In fact until such time as annual new BTS demand attracted by that specific promotion was less than 3% of BitUSD currently in circulation it would be a net gain to BTS.
Unless there is a major flaw in that concept I don't know how we could not do it and remain competitive to be honest because if someone else applied it, they would be able to offer the same BitUSD product as us, except theirs would have a basic lucrative yield. (Which would be self-funding, increase the value of their DAC and bootstrap their BitUSD.) That higher valuation would then allow them to afford more spending on other development & outcompete BTS in other areas too.
-
i'm still a fan of the 2.0 concept of segregating yield from the smartcoin and enabling it in a bond market. Paying yield for simply holding smartcoins without the accompanying lending function is sort of a dead capital concept.
The concept outlined in the OP, doesn't preclude a bond market and may even help bootstrap BitAssets to the point where they could support a thriving bond market sooner.
All else being equal, would you rather hold a BitUSD that was earning yield or a BitUSD that wasn't?
Do you agree that new users receiving the BitUSD yield in future would first have to make a much larger BTS (For BitUSD) purchase today?
Yes, of course that's one way to induce more BTS buying today, but it also blows our load prematurely IMO by allocating whatever funds we decide to subsidize that yield. It also changes course yet again, which has been a widespread criticism of our community, and would lead to another course change in the future if we set up a better bond market option and then stopped paying yield on smartcoins to direct it to bonds. Being flexible has merits and this community has exhibited it can make changes without falling apart, which is a positive attribute to our governance, but change still brings uncertainty that i think we can do without at the moment.
we had (or have) a roadmap for 2.0 that includes a bond market, so i'm just more a fan of continuing that course to meet expectations than to change (even if there's near term utility).
-
I started to think more about incentivizing fiat liquidity... In your OP you offered two choices: signup/deposit bonuses & subsidizing yield and exchange liquidity. I think we could do both of these to attract more users and create more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets.
- Signup bonuses to people who verify themselves in Openledger. It doesn't need to be a big one, because BTS price is so low that even low value sums seems big for newbies. 1000 BTS bonus for 100 first verified users would cost only 100 000 BTS.
- Deposit bonuses for users that make their first OPEN.USD/EUR/CNY deposit.
Personally I don't think Sign-Up bonuses are a good way for a DAC to attract users/bootstrap if they have to use shares to fund it. (For example, even though our Market CAP is $10 million dollars, a $100 000 promotion for example would cost much much more in terms of the sell pressure it creates. So it's incredibly hard to make up that high cost. It's also counter-productive to bootstrapping a DAC because a declining share price will lose you more existing supporters than a bonus paid in shares to new users attracts)
No need to do high cost project. 1000 BTS for verifying and for first deposit for 100 new users would cost 200 000 BTS which is about 800 USD. We could try this as a campaign and see how it works. If we see good results (more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets) we can do it again and stop when we have enough orders. Fiat liquidity is quite important and we won't see it without verified users. I'd like to see at least 5000 USD/EUR in 5 % from spot price.
This is not a sharedrop for random people but a thankyou-bonus for becoming a verified user. We need them because unverified users can't deposit and withdraw fiat currencies. Of course I'm open to other ideas as well, this is just a first one that popped to my mind today.
-
I started to think more about incentivizing fiat liquidity... In your OP you offered two choices: signup/deposit bonuses & subsidizing yield and exchange liquidity. I think we could do both of these to attract more users and create more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets.
- Signup bonuses to people who verify themselves in Openledger. It doesn't need to be a big one, because BTS price is so low that even low value sums seems big for newbies. 1000 BTS bonus for 100 first verified users would cost only 100 000 BTS.
- Deposit bonuses for users that make their first OPEN.USD/EUR/CNY deposit.
Personally I don't think Sign-Up bonuses are a good way for a DAC to attract users/bootstrap if they have to use shares to fund it. (For example, even though our Market CAP is $10 million dollars, a $100 000 promotion for example would cost much much more in terms of the sell pressure it creates. So it's incredibly hard to make up that high cost. It's also counter-productive to bootstrapping a DAC because a declining share price will lose you more existing supporters than a bonus paid in shares to new users attracts)
No need to do high cost project. 1000 BTS for verifying and for first deposit for 100 new users would cost 200 000 BTS which is about 800 USD. We could try this as a campaign and see how it works. If we see good results (more liquidity in fiat/smartcoin markets) we can do it again and stop when we have enough orders. Fiat liquidity is quite important and we won't see it without verified users. I'd like to see at least 5000 USD/EUR in 5 % from spot price.
This is not a sharedrop for random people but a thankyou-bonus for becoming a verified user. We need them because unverified users can't deposit and withdraw fiat currencies. Of course I'm open to other ideas as well, this is just a first one that popped to my mind today.
I think the cost is higher when you use BTS but yeah it seems relatively cheap to trial.
I don't know much about market making but wouldn't you be better of incentivising the liquidity directly?
NuBits for example on CCDEK has NBT/EUR, $5000 on the bid and ask side daily in a tight spread at a cost of $20 per day it seems http://cybnate.github.io/index-liquidbits.html