BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: fuzzy on June 09, 2016, 05:24:10 pm
-
Would you vote on a worker proposal that pays monthly X amount, 90% (of X) to pay for various coins' to be added to BitShares? 10% goes to pay for my efforts and any tools to make them easier that I may need.
So for example:
BitShares community offers deals on their own particular services that are connected to bitshares, then I go to Gridcoin, NXT, DAO and many others to bring them onto our exchange. I do a hangout with them. Maybe blockcktrades adds their coin for a lower price...etc, but all service providers are paid from this worker. I am paid for putting it all together in a package and handing it out in outreach efforts.
As I see it, most of the money paid out would either go into the hands of obvious longs, or would go directly back into paying bitshares fees...so this would actually cost much less to do (and could bring large volume to bitshares).
-
IMHO, we should not pay for other communities coins to be "listed" in BitShares. We need to establish ourselves as a premium product and let THEM do the first step. It does not make a lot of sense to me to have hundreds of "coins" listed with next to no volume. If a coins community understands the advantages of BitShares over any other exchange, then they are free (literaly) to join up and create their asset on their own (while making a profit on operations/trading fees)
I also don't see why paying for that will end the BTS tokens in the hands of longs ..
Also, adding a coin to BitShares is more than just add a new symbol. You need a bridge and besides Metaexchange and blocktrades, there is no one offering this and in particular there is no software publicly available to deal with it. So this is another cost factor ..
I see other projects that bring more value to BitShares than paying random coins to be added.
-
Not sure what you mean with "adding coins to BitShares".
You can already trade several coins on the chain in the form of OPEN.* (and similar) assets. AFAICS the gateways providing them are operating with a nice profit, so why should we pay them using a worker?
Or do you mean something like bitNXT, i. e. a SmartCoin? Why would we want to have that, and why would the NXT guys want to have that?
I don't think we need additional SmartCoins at this time. We already have more SmartCoins than liquidity.
-
If blocktarades and metaexchange are such big money makers, I'm stuck wondering why metaexchange is closing operations.
As for bitasset versions of peoples tokens, and why they would want it...they will prefer them over UIAs simply because the perception for most is that our exchanges UIAs like open.* are IOUs (which they are) but presented in a more honest way...that also just tends be terrible for A) usability B) perception
Lets ask a differenr questiin here to both of you. Why do we not have anywhere near the options of most exchanges? Sometimes we have to dish out funding to help get things started. And if we make people pay initially for everything before we even have a respectible market presence, we are giving them just one more reason to go with (or build) a competitor.
What happens if in the coming months a comptetitor comes out with a cloned version of bitshares with a better ui and offers free listing of tokens over x marketcapmarketcap, for instance?
I think your argumebnts against assume we are living in a vaccuum where we have all the time in the world...I promise we dont
-
Does Poloniex pay a reward to get coins on its platform? The opposite: altcoins pay for the privilege of being added to the exchange.
So, this worker seems backward to me, at first glance.
-
Does Poloniex pay a reward to get coins on its platform? The opposite: altcoins pay for the privilege of being added to the exchange.
So, this worker seems backward to me, at first glance.
Try not to compare us to polo. Their users would all be here already using our exchange if the comparison was fair...in which case we wouldn't need to bootstrap it.
Also look at DAO...they are giving out money to own large stakes in various crypto projects and help build them. If they keep doing that and eventually come out with their own exchange (which could come from graphene toolkit free of charge) most of these projects would trade there in a heartbeat. They would gain a larger userbase in leaps and bounds....these are the reasons I see concern. Unleess of course something is going on about which I am completely unaware...in which case id love to know about it.
-
You need a bridge
This is key. Otherwise, whatevercoin can't get onto the chain, unless I'm missing something obvious (SmartCoin peg?). @fuzzy do you have a bridge in mind for this worker proposal?
-
If you are not a top programmer ,pls don't keep thinking about worker proposal.I welcome all kinds of dedication,but worker proposal's rule is coding.
We can create a new asset :Fuzzycoin\FuzzyDAO and pay for various coins' to be added to BitShares.
-
IMHO, we should not pay for other communities coins to be "listed" in BitShares. We need to establish ourselves as a premium product and let THEM do the first step. It does not make a lot of sense to me to have hundreds of "coins" listed with next to no volume. If a coins community understands the advantages of BitShares over any other exchange, then they are free (literaly) to join up and create their asset on their own (while making a profit on operations/trading fees)
I also don't see why paying for that will end the BTS tokens in the hands of longs ..
Also, adding a coin to BitShares is more than just add a new symbol. You need a bridge and besides Metaexchange and blocktrades, there is no one offering this and in particular there is no software publicly available to deal with it. So this is another cost factor ..
I see other projects that bring more value to BitShares than paying random coins to be added.
+5%
we know poloniex btc38 bter yunbi bittrex pay anyting to coins that be added.
-
You need a bridge
This is key. Otherwise, whatevercoin can't get onto the chain, unless I'm missing something obvious (SmartCoin peg?). @fuzzy do you have a bridge in mind for this worker proposal?
Only one available at presen that we should consider imo. Blocktrades started here and could offer to be part of a "deal". Heck we could add metaexchange to the list as well if they were keeping the shop open.
-
Getting a new crypto added to BTS is a bit of a nightmare - It costs 4BTC to get added on CCEDK/openledger for an open.<crypto> asset (filled out the application form for Gridcoin & heard nothing back for 3 months now), blocktrades/transwiser don't mention adding new cryptocurrencies to their system and metaexchange is unfortunately shutting down - gateway options are limited & my past experiences of paying to get added on exchanges (cryptsy, mintpal, etc) put me off having to pay to get added to a service somewhat.
We applied to BitSquare and got added instantly without payment, the entry to bitshares is difficult by comparison. A 2 way peg between blockchains instead of using gateways/bridges/middlemen would be amazing.
My (3 months out of date) application form for gridcoin for CCEDK: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WsSt2DVgznlyvl2ZHii1_h2bPvTRf_PXQAlYGV3Wr6g/pub
-
IMHO, we should not pay for other communities coins to be "listed" in BitShares. We need to establish ourselves as a premium product and let THEM do the first step. It does not make a lot of sense to me to have hundreds of "coins" listed with next to no volume. If a coins community understands the advantages of BitShares over any other exchange, then they are free (literaly) to join up and create their asset on their own (while making a profit on operations/trading fees)
I also don't see why paying for that will end the BTS tokens in the hands of longs ..
Also, adding a coin to BitShares is more than just add a new symbol. You need a bridge and besides Metaexchange and blocktrades, there is no one offering this and in particular there is no software publicly available to deal with it. So this is another cost factor ..
I see other projects that bring more value to BitShares than paying random coins to be added.
Agree! We should attract their attention by our reputation, not by giving them free tokens or begging them .
-
IMHO, we should not pay for other communities coins to be "listed" in BitShares. We need to establish ourselves as a premium product and let THEM do the first step. It does not make a lot of sense to me to have hundreds of "coins" listed with next to no volume. If a coins community understands the advantages of BitShares over any other exchange, then they are free (literaly) to join up and create their asset on their own (while making a profit on operations/trading fees)
I also don't see why paying for that will end the BTS tokens in the hands of longs ..
Also, adding a coin to BitShares is more than just add a new symbol. You need a bridge and besides Metaexchange and blocktrades, there is no one offering this and in particular there is no software publicly available to deal with it. So this is another cost factor ..
I see other projects that bring more value to BitShares than paying random coins to be added.
Agree! We should attract their attention by our reputation, not by giving them free tokens or begging them .
exactly, if they don't see value in it, it makes no sense to add a MPA