Under BitShares the BitAsset holders receive a yield simply by holding BitUSD. This yield was between 1% and 5% APR on average. Unfortunately, yield harvesting can happen at any time by someone shorting to themselves to gain a very low risk return and undermining goal of encouraging people to buy and hold BitUSD. The yield was funded from transaction fees and by interest paid by shorts.
As we stated previously, undercharging for transactions is bad for business and BitShares was effectively earning nothing for all transactions of BitUSD because 100% of the income generated from fees was paid out to BitUSD holders as yield and nothing was left over to cover network expenses.
While Socialized Yield is broken, BitShares 2.0 offers a far better alternative: Collateralized Bonds. Collateralized Bonds enable arbitrary shorting between any two assets, guaranteed interest, and no risk of being force settled. This system privatizes the yield to individual bonds and the terms and leverage available can be far more flexible. In effect, BitUSD becomes cash and a Bond becomes a Certificate of Deposit.
I'm in favor of a Dividend method.I like the idea of dividends compared to OBITS buyback, but as far as I remember there was an voting in OBITS and idea of buyback was the winner.
I'm in favor of a Dividend method.I like the idea of dividends compared to OBITS buyback, but as far as I remember there was an voting in OBITS and idea of buyback was the winner.
I'm in favor of a Dividend method.Seconded. It'd be great if there was an automated & scheduled dividend mechanism for MPA assets.
I love the idea of being able to offer an interest rate of return on bitAssets. OP's idea of redirecting some of the referral program's share of fees is an interesting way to accomplish it without reducing deflation (i.e. increasing inflation). The question is how much of the desired effect will be realized if we reduce the referral program's share of fees from 80% to 60%? To know that, we really need to know how much we're currently collecting in fees.
But let's just say for argument's sake we're currently collecting $10,000 (or ~1.2M BTS) in fees per month. 20% of that (redirected from the referral program) would be $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. That would support 1% annual percentage rate on $2,400,000 worth of bitAssets. Or 2% APR on $1,200,000. Or 4% APR on $600,000.
Each of those potential outcomes would represent a substantial increase in bitAsset demand. But the numbers are based on a guesstimated 1.2M BTS per month in fees. Is that even close to reality? If so, we could be onto something here. In which case the next question would be how to implement this. It sounds like we would need the dividend feature.
I love the idea of being able to offer an interest rate of return on bitAssets. OP's idea of redirecting some of the referral program's share of fees is an interesting way to accomplish it without reducing deflation (i.e. increasing inflation). The question is how much of the desired effect will be realized if we reduce the referral program's share of fees from 80% to 60%? To know that, we really need to know how much we're currently collecting in fees.
But let's just say for argument's sake we're currently collecting $10,000 (or ~1.2M BTS) in fees per month. 20% of that (redirected from the referral program) would be $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. That would support 1% annual percentage rate on $2,400,000 worth of bitAssets. Or 2% APR on $1,200,000. Or 4% APR on $600,000.
Each of those potential outcomes would represent a substantial increase in bitAsset demand. But the numbers are based on a guesstimated 1.2M BTS per month in fees. Is that even close to reality? If so, we could be onto something here. In which case the next question would be how to implement this. It sounds like we would need the dividend feature.Your estimated fees, according to cryptofresh, are nowhere near the current estimates. We need additional sources of information to confirm this is the case.
I love the idea of being able to offer an interest rate of return on bitAssets. OP's idea of redirecting some of the referral program's share of fees is an interesting way to accomplish it without reducing deflation (i.e. increasing inflation). The question is how much of the desired effect will be realized if we reduce the referral program's share of fees from 80% to 60%? To know that, we really need to know how much we're currently collecting in fees.
Looking at the cryptofresh reserve budget page (http://cryptofresh.com/reserve (http://cryptofresh.com/reserve)) , the following chart is shown:
(https://i.imgur.com/hr73NkE.png)
Is this accurate? Are these stats since the launch of BTS 2.0 or are they representative of a few months?
By the way, we really should not contemplate reducing the network's current 20% share of the fees. That would be inflationary, which would decrease demand for BTS. It would also make it more difficult to fund worker proposals. If anything, we should increase the network's share, which would be deflationary and would also make it easier to fund worker proposals. Both factors would help increase demand for BTS and help compound the effect of offering interest by contributing even more to the virtuous circle.
@Customminer -- I'm not sure over what period time those fees were accumulated. But it can't possibly be since inception of BTS 2.0. I don't even think that pool includes all fees currently being collected. I mean, where is BTS on that list? The overwhelming majority of fees are collected in BTS, not those other assets, right? So we need some clarification as to what that pool is, exactly.
But in the meantime, looking at the top 20 "most fees paid" list on cryptofresh, it appears we've generated at least ~17M BTS in fees since BTS 2.0 launched. That's about 1M BTS per month. Actually, it's more since this is only the top 20 accounts in terms of fees paid. So I think it's pretty close to my guess of 1.2M BTS monthly. Not to mention, the current monthly rate of fee collection should be higher than the monthly average over the last 18 months considering the substantial growth in transactions we've been experiencing. On the other hand, a lot of the fees listed below may be from creating assets and therefore more "one-time" in nature (or at least more irregular).
Anyway, this is just a bunch of guess work. We need to know the actual rate of monthly fee collection. But if my guess is even close, then this idea of redirecting a portion of referral rewards could fund substantial bitAsset demand without having to increase fees. Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, then this could still be worth pursuing considering, as @fav mentioned, it could kick off a virtuous cycle that could end up being substantial.
By the way, we really should not contemplate reducing the network's current 20% share of the fees. That would be inflationary, which would decrease demand for BTS. It would also make it more difficult to fund worker proposals. If anything, we should increase the network's share, which would be deflationary and would also make it easier to fund worker proposals. Both factors would help increase demand for BTS and help compound the effect of offering interest by contributing even more to the virtuous circle.Funding worker proposals in the short term would not be affected, as the BTS stored in the reserve pool is substantial. That said, I agree that reducing the network fees would lead to BTS being made liquid in a more rapid fashion, but I do not agree that it is entirely inflationary as it is just reintroducing coins (which would otherwise have been temporarily locked away) back into the public's coin supply in a more timely manner. A more explicitly inflationary move would be to sharedrop BTS from the reserve.
I believe that we should offer more than 20%, this is something we could potentially vote on within the client. How would we go about voting on multiple possible parameter outcomes within the client? Best to bring this topic up in the next Bitshares hangout on Friday then move forwards to polls with a few hand selected combinations?By the way, we really should not contemplate reducing the network's current 20% share of the fees. That would be inflationary, which would decrease demand for BTS. It would also make it more difficult to fund worker proposals. If anything, we should increase the network's share, which would be deflationary and would also make it easier to fund worker proposals. Both factors would help increase demand for BTS and help compound the effect of offering interest by contributing even more to the virtuous circle.
agree, just take 20% of referral income. that way registrars could still maintain 20%, marketers could get 20% and 20% interest
I really like this thread, it reminds me of the thinking and enthusiasm in 2014.
I am somewhat surprised @fav hasn't vocalized more resistance to reducing the % for the referral program; perhaps he recognizes the broader benefit of interest on anything?
I believe that we should offer more than 20%, this is something we could potentially vote on within the client. How would we go about voting on multiple possible parameter outcomes within the client? Best to bring this topic up in the next Bitshares hangout on Friday then move forwards to polls with a few hand selected combinations?
How about:
Network; x% Interest; Referral System
20, 40, 40
30, 40, 30
Is there a pool of known Bitshares contract developers that we can work with?
I believe that we should offer more than 20%, this is something we could potentially vote on within the client. How would we go about voting on multiple possible parameter outcomes within the client? Best to bring this topic up in the next Bitshares hangout on Friday then move forwards to polls with a few hand selected combinations?
How about:
Network; x% Interest; Referral System
20, 40, 40
30, 40, 30
first of all, before we talk more than the golden girls (as usual), please find a dev and get a price estimation on the costs. also, pretty sure this needs a hardfork. the parameters could be set by the committee, but let's talk about the details once this can be implemented
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.I agree. The referal system in its present form is pointless. I think it should be a one time payout bonus based on some metric the new user hits. The new user should either generate a certain revenue in fees and/or reach a certain amount of activity over say a 3 to 6 month period. This is more in line with traditional referal programs. Those lifetime fees currently would be better off going to a yield pool for all.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.
Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.+5%
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.
Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.
Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.
Referral systems are multi billion dollars of magnitude better than what anyone else could possibly add to BitShares. Problem is no one here has any clue.
Referral systems are multi billion dollars of magnitude better than what anyone else could possibly add to BitShares. Problem is no one here has any clue.
Then pls elaborate this multi billion dollar idea. Referral system is derivative of recognition of life time value of the client. New clients value is sum of all profit they bring to a business during their life time. Small part of that value is given to the ones that bring this new business, basically as one time reward rarely as a fee. Now, how Bitshares referral system fits to this general idea. I think this referral system doesn't have Bitshares platform as business in mind.
Your strong attitude when there are so many greater issues leads me to be skeptical of your perspective.
Lastly the referral program like so many other aspects of the entire BTS ecosystem is a grand experiment. Don't be too hasty to presume it won't work without adequate data.
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.
Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.
Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.
I disagree. The fee change to nothing and the lack of features for ltm rendered it useless. Referral systems are multi billion dollars of magnitude better than what anyone else could possibly add to BitShares. Problem is no one here has any clue.
Let's not make this all about referral system, this topic is too important.
Here's a thought :
Take 20% off of the fee pool.
15% go to ALL DIVIDENDS
5% go to LTM DIVIDENDS
that would lead to yet another cycle, investors would upgrade, fuel fee pool by upgrading and marketers/registrars would earn as well.
Win win win?
BTS reserve pool should be spent on essential network operations only, which are witnesses and essential development projects. Referrals, dividends and other farts and whistles should be funded other ways.I agree that referrals and dividends should not come out of the reserve pool, and I don't believe anyone in here is proposing this - we're focused on the fees that are currently allocated to the referral system.
And giving away 80% of BTS revenue to referrals is just stupid.
You say 20% off of the fee pool, do you mean the 20% allocated from fees to top up the reserve pool, or a 20% sharedrop from the reserve pool?
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend
I also propose that the referrer gets the 20% on ALL fees, even on fees paid by LTM users (which i'm 90% sure referrers currently get 0% of). In addition, I propose that the referrer keeps 100% of the LTM fee.
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend
sounds like a plan. who can do it? @kenCode 's team? should we request a quote?
edit: peerplays' dividend code is free to use as far as I know
This is basically situation we currently have. Current model is unsustainable. We are spending more then we earn.
I agree with @fav that this should not become a debate about whether referral programs have merit, because it's a proven fact that they can be incredibly powerful. However, OPs idea cannot be realized without modification of the existing program. So that clearly has to be a part of this conversation. Not to mention, we know the referral program has issues that need to be addressed. So this may also be a very good opportunity to make the referral program more sensible and effective...while simultaneously making it possible to pay interest to bitAsset holders, as well s fav's great new idea of paying a dividend to LTM accounts. All without dilution.
Rewarding those who simply hold assets does not improve the DEX.
I know there are plenty voicing opinions in this thread, but I'd like to take a moment to share mine.
First and foremost, I do not agree with any actions that add strain to the reserve pool (without a very strong argument for long term benefit). Witness pay has just increased and more active workers are draining the pool faster than increased activity can keep up. Long term goal should be a sustainable pool which balances pay with fees.
Second. There should be no change to LTM fee percentages (small changes to non-LTM is fine with me). Many have chosen LTM knowing the cost-benefit of 80% fees returned. Don't mess with this.
Third. We must explore motivations and desired outcomes for any suggested changes. What problem are we trying to solve? What impact does this have on the long-term health of the Bitshares ecosystem?
In my opinion, the two things which would help Bitshares the most is:
- increased supply of bitAssets
- usable liquidity
The reason being that more active and usable markets will attract new traders to the DEX. Rewarding those who simply hold assets does not improve the DEX.
I come back, then, to the idea suggested a little while ago: Reward those who have bitAsset debt (collateralized position) with (new) market fees from same bitAsset markets. Only those with debt collect dividends (from the market-produced trading fees -- aka "market fee") at a pro-rata basis. Simply holding a bitAsset does not yield dividends.
What does this do?
- encourages more to short, increasing supply
- encourages riskier shorts closer to MCR to get most bitAsset for the BTS (which then results in more forced settlement activity)
- encourages those who do short to actively make markets to increase usable liquidity, which in turn provides volume and increases dividend from market fees
If the idea is adopted, I'd like to see it applied (as a test case) to a less-active bitAsset first before moving on to the big ones.
Thanks for reading!
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
I know there are plenty voicing opinions in this thread, but I'd like to take a moment to share mine.
First and foremost, I do not agree with any actions that add strain to the reserve pool (without a very strong argument for long term benefit). Witness pay has just increased and more active workers are draining the pool faster than increased activity can keep up. Long term goal should be a sustainable pool which balances pay with fees.
Second. There should be no change to LTM fee percentages (small changes to non-LTM is fine with me). Many have chosen LTM knowing the cost-benefit of 80% fees returned. Don't mess with this.
Third. We must explore motivations and desired outcomes for any suggested changes. What problem are we trying to solve? What impact does this have on the long-term health of the Bitshares ecosystem?
In my opinion, the two things which would help Bitshares the most is:
- increased supply of bitAssets
- usable liquidity
The reason being that more active and usable markets will attract new traders to the DEX. Rewarding those who simply hold assets does not improve the DEX.If we can get all/most/more Bitshares holders to hold their bitshares on the DEX instead of on centralized exchanges, we minimize the risk of said centralized exchanges having a massive voting weight with which they can disrupt the voting mechanism (proposals/polls/committee/witnesses/etc).
I come back, then, to the idea suggested a little while ago: Reward those who have bitAsset debt (collateralized position) with (new) market fees from same bitAsset markets. Only those with debt collect dividends (from the market-produced trading fees -- aka "market fee") at a pro-rata basis. Simply holding a bitAsset does not yield dividends.Providing dividends upon shorting of bitassets is open to abuse, 'yield-harvesting' was one of the main reasons that this functionality was removed during the upgrade from BTS 0.x to 2.0.
Let's make that statement a reality.
- "BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
Thanks to those who commented on what I wrote. I have little time for detailed response but it's clear there is a wider perspective here which I did not consider.
But I will reinforce one idea in-particular: Substantial revenue for paying BTS and bitAsset interest can be made via "Market Fees". This alleviates the risk of reserve pool managing short positions (or even touching the reserve pool at all). One advantage is that "Market Fees" are produced in *that* asset (ie: bitUSD market fees come out in bitUSD, and etc). The transaction fee schedule then remains, in effect, an anti-spam measure and does not take away from the existing referral system. Plus there is no in-between step of converting BTS from transaction fees into the currency of choice.
Now, I do believe the market fees must be kept small to keep Bitshares a competitive trading platform. Something like 0.05 to 0.1% is probably okay??? Would need broader community feedback and analysis.
EDIT: I really do think revenue sharing from exchange activity is important... Does this phrase ring a bell?:Let's make that statement a reality.
- "BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend
And I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'. Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market. Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different. Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts. They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages. I think it's a bad idea to change this now.
QuoteAnd I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.
QuoteAnd another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'. Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market. Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different. Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts. They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages. I think it's a bad idea to change this now.
This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.
QuoteAnd I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.
Can you explain this? It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose. How could someone short to themselves?
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders? Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts. And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings. There's nothing scammy about it!
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees. This proposal wants to raise that to 50%. Don't you love that? You should. You should love this whole proposal.
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.
50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend
I would support something like this.
It might be easier to get consensus in smaller steps. Maybe just get consensus on 50% for network and 50% referrals first.
This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
I tend to agree with alt on this. I would much rather have us start actually burning the fees instead of recycling them into the reserve pool so that bitshares would eventually go deflationary.
QuoteAnd I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.
Can you explain this? It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose. How could someone short to themselves?
Someone can borrow bitUSD and send it to his other account. He is not in debt in this case and he shorts nothing on the market, but he is eligible for receiving yield. And you can't tell if someone is a legit shorter or a yield harvester just by looking at account debt, because you don't know who owns which account.
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders? Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts. And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings. There's nothing scammy about it!
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees. This proposal wants to raise that to 50%. Don't you love that? You should. You should love this whole proposal.
QuoteAnd I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.
Can you explain this? It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose. How could someone short to themselves?
Someone can borrow bitUSD and send it to his other account. He is not in debt in this case and he shorts nothing on the market, but he is eligible for receiving yield. And you can't tell if someone is a legit shorter or a yield harvester just by looking at account debt, because you don't know who owns which account.
Um, no. You can't erase your debt just by sending bitUSD to another account. The debt remains on the original account. The second account now holds bitUSD with no debt. This argument makes no sense.
QuoteAnd I honestly don't see why it can't be paid only to shorters (collateralized positions, only those who have current debt). The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above would not seem to apply if dividends are paid only to those with current debt.
The 'yield-harvesting' "problem" mentioned above does seem to apply, because there is no way to know who actually have current debt and who shorted to themselves.
Can you explain this? It is my understanding that the blockchain retains a collateral-to-debt ratio per account and is enforced at a blockchain protocol level -- so this (debt portion) is the metric I'd choose. How could someone short to themselves?
Someone can borrow bitUSD and send it to his other account. He is not in debt in this case and he shorts nothing on the market, but he is eligible for receiving yield. And you can't tell if someone is a legit shorter or a yield harvester just by looking at account debt, because you don't know who owns which account.
Um, no. You can't erase your debt just by sending bitUSD to another account. The debt remains on the original account. The second account now holds bitUSD with no debt. This argument makes no sense.
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
You are confused here. The problem is that people can short to themselves by just setting up another account. What does that accomplish that is worth paying for? This is a widely understood issue that people have dubbed "yield harvesting".
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
Bob borrows $10 from Alice. Then Bob gives the $10 to Frank. It changes nothing. Bob still owes Alice $10.
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
Bob borrows $10 from Alice. Then Bob gives the $10 to Frank. It changes nothing. Bob still owes Alice $10.
Yeah, right. Now look at this: Bob creates 10 bitUSD and sends it to his own account. Not to Alice, not to Frank, but to himself. How much does Bob owes?
Tip: Bob owes nothing to nobody. Think about it.
Benefits over transaction fee distribution:
* Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
* Does not violate LTM agreement
* Does not mess with referral expectations
"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
Benefits over transaction fee distribution:
* Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
* Does not violate LTM agreement
* Does not mess with referral expectations
"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
In my opinion suggested model doesn't affect LTM members at all. Lets see:
LTM member pays fee in advance (LTM mebership fee) and gets 80% cash back, on every fee they pay to the network.. It is simple bulk discount.
Proposed change ONLY affects non LTM users which pay same fee as anyone else. They doesn't get any cash back only.
Their fee goes 20% to the network and 80% to referrer and registrant coalition.
Proposed change increases network cut from 20% to 50% decreases referrer coalition cut from 80% to 20% and introduces new beneficiaries like bitAsset interests (20%) and LTM members interests(10%).
Non LTM users can decide whenever they like to pay LTM membership fee and get 80% cash back on their fees. As I understand current model, such action breaks referrers dill and network keeps all of membership fee. Am I right?
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
Bob borrows $10 from Alice. Then Bob moves it from right pocket to left pocket. It changes nothing. Bob still owes Alice $10.You are confused here. The problem is that people can short to themselves by just setting up another account. What does that accomplish that is worth paying for? This is a widely understood issue that people have dubbed "yield harvesting".
No, I'm not confused here. The blockchain tracks collateral-to-debt ratio. This is not a problem if dividend is sent only to those with current debt and not holders. If dividend was to shorters and holders then yes, I see the problem.
Anyway, I'm shelving the idea in favor of the simpler "market fee revenue to holders" I outlined above.
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
Bob borrows $10 from Alice. Then Bob moves it from right pocket to left pocket. It changes nothing. Bob still owes Alice $10.You are confused here. The problem is that people can short to themselves by just setting up another account. What does that accomplish that is worth paying for? This is a widely understood issue that people have dubbed "yield harvesting".
No, I'm not confused here. The blockchain tracks collateral-to-debt ratio. This is not a problem if dividend is sent only to those with current debt and not holders. If dividend was to shorters and holders then yes, I see the problem.
Trust me, you're confused. The point of paying shorters would be to incentivize them to provide liquidity. In other words, we want them to borrow bitAssets and short sell them to someone else who wants/needs to buy them. That is useful activity and is worth rewarding. But if that person just shorts the bitAssets to himself in another account, then that is NOT useful activity and should not be rewarded. That is the definition of "yield harvesting". There is no way we can know if someone is legitimately shorting to other market participants, or just yield harvesting. That is why we can't reward bitAsset short positions. Please stop insisting otherwise.
Anyway, I'm shelving the idea in favor of the simpler "market fee revenue to holders" I outlined above.
What you're describing is not simpler. You keep talking about market fees vs. transaction fees, as if we should be directing one type of fee for one purpose, and another type of fee for another purpose. Right now we have general income from fees paid, period. That income is split 80/20 between the referral program and the network. We're talking about shifting a portion of that income currently going to the referral program in order to 1) replenish the reserve pool 2.5x faster, 2) drive demand for bitAssets by paying interest, 3) reward LTM accounts with a dividend.
Another thing. You keep saying you prefer "market fee distribution" because there is "no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment." Again, your idea of separate "market fee distribution" and "transaction fee distribution" is overly complicated. Also, no one is talking about converting BTS to bitAssets. You are either confused with some other proposal on another thread. Or you are intentionally confusing matters.
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
If you put $10 from one of your pockets to another one, how much do you owe at the end?
You can technically borrow whatever on DEX, but until you give away or sell whatever you borrowed, you are not in short position and you debt is zero. By allowing yield harvesting you are not going to increase liquidity.
Bob borrows $10 from Alice. Then Bob gives the $10 to Frank. It changes nothing. Bob still owes Alice $10.
Yeah, right. Now look at this: Bob creates 10 bitUSD and sends it to his own account. Not to Alice, not to Frank, but to himself. How much does Bob owes?
Tip: Bob owes nothing to nobody. Think about it.
Bob now has $10 in another account. But it was borrowed from the blockchain with BTS as collateral. He still owes the blockchain $10.
If the collateralized debt could be erased simply by moving bitUSD around, don't you think MPA would have failed a loooooong time ago?
This is all dandy, but misleading. The claim that this proposal does not raise user fees is absolutely FALSE!I see what you mean now, you're right that to LTM users this proposal represents an increase in user fees, as up to this point the LTM benefits include 80% cashback on fees spent.
A LTM account pays 20% to network, and gets 80% back in vesting. And anyone who has self-registered sub-accounts, is the same -- 20% to network and 80% back to the registering account. Don't mess with this -- any changes represent a major breach of trust to anybody who paid the $80-$150 to become a Life Time Member.
Do it with market fees. Then there is no worry about how to convert to a chosen bitAsset, and is market driven -- more volume creates more revenue.
[ ... ]
EDIT: And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'. Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market. Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different.
Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts. They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages. I think it's a bad idea to change this now.[/i]I acknowledge that registrars/referrers will be negatively affected initially by the reduction in their earnings, however if the introduction of dividends/profit-sharing drives a larger user base to the BTS DEX this could be somewhat negated.
In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"I disagree that this is a scam, it's simply a proposal to change the distribution of currently collected fees to pay asset holders on the BTS DEX.
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
bank have many real business to pay the divident.The Bitshares business is the utilization of the BTS DEX - the transaction fees generated within the DEX can be utilised to pay dividends to asset holders.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.
I tend to agree with alt on this. I would much rather have us start actually burning the fees instead of recycling them into the reserve pool so that bitshares would eventually go deflationary.You can already do this by utilising the worker proposal mechanism to burn BTS within the reserve pool.
Benefits over transaction fee distribution:We already produce revenue from market activity via transaction fees without the need for additional market fees.
1. Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
2. Does not violate LTM agreement
3. Does not mess with referral expectations
"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
Producing revenue from market activity is a natural income source for an exchange. Sharing it with Bitshares users makes sense to me.
Benefits over transaction fee distribution:We already produce revenue from market activity via transaction fees without the need for additional market fees.
1. Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
2. Does not violate LTM agreement
3. Does not mess with referral expectations
"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"
Producing revenue from market activity is a natural income source for an exchange. Sharing it with Bitshares users makes sense to me.
I've numbered your points for easier referencing:
1. You can pay transaction fees in assets other than BTS, so we can already immediately distribute bitUSD to bitUSD holders instead of converting it from bitUSD -> BTS prior to redistribution. Unless this is an automated process right now? The committee in charge of the fees assigned to the reserve pool could provide additional information here.
2. The agreement was that the membership you purchased was to exist for a lifetime, not that the benefits were permanent for the lifetime of your account. These benefits should be subject to change, given sufficient network consensus.
3. The referral system being allocated 80% of transaction fees was unfair to begin with, there was an expected replacement income stream for asset holders in the form of a bond market which never materialized. It's time for asset holders to have a slice of the pie allocated to them. Referrals don't keep users around, dividends do.
bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders? Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts. And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings. There's nothing scammy about it!
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees. This proposal wants to raise that to 50%. Don't you love that? You should. You should love this whole proposal.
We are talking about paying the dividends by using a percentage of the fees collected. Those are fees that users paid for utilizing the services offered by bitshares. This is not real business being conducted? This is not value created by bitshares?
let me know if I'm misunderstanding
I thought you are talking about attract more users with something like earn easy money.
you think this is huge, even want to change many rules.
my point is there is no easy money totally,
we have profit as a DEX, but I don't think it's a good idea to wast these money attract some fake user.
I have no interesting in this easy money trick
if you are talking about something like adjust balance for the shorters and longers, it should be another thread.bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders? Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts. And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings. There's nothing scammy about it!
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees. This proposal wants to raise that to 50%. Don't you love that? You should. You should love this whole proposal.
We are talking about paying the dividends by using a percentage of the fees collected. Those are fees that users paid for utilizing the services offered by bitshares. This is not real business being conducted? This is not value created by bitshares?
- Implement our profit sharing code thanks to Peerplays (http://www.peerplays.com) development
let me know if I'm misunderstanding
I thought you are talking about attract more users with something like earn easy money.
you think this is huge, even want to change many rules.
my point is there is no easy money totally,
we have profit as a DEX, but I don't think it's a good idea to wast these money attract some fake user.
I have no interesting in this easy money trick
if you are talking about something like adjust balance for the shorters and longers, it should be another thread.bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.In fact I feel sick for the "+5%"
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.
@alt, what's wrong with paying a rate of return to bitAsset holders? Banks have traditionally offered interest on savings accounts. And in crypto, chains like DASH, NEM, PIVX, and others enable users to get a return on their holdings. There's nothing scammy about it!
Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation. Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation. Is this just a coincidence?
Finally, as you know, currently the network gets 20% of collected fees. This proposal wants to raise that to 50%. Don't you love that? You should. You should love this whole proposal.
We are talking about paying the dividends by using a percentage of the fees collected. Those are fees that users paid for utilizing the services offered by bitshares. This is not real business being conducted? This is not value created by bitshares?
No, please tell me if *I* am misunderstanding. Are you saying that people who buy bitAssets are "fake users"? Maybe you should let @bitcrab know about this. After all, his transwiser business depends on demand for bitAssets. Without such demand, he has no business. And we know that demand is much lower now than it was in the past when bitAsset holders were able to earn a rate of return on their holdings.
So tell me, do you want bitcrab's transwiser business to have customers? What about other shorters and traders in general? Do you want an active market for bitAssets where a large number of users means there is always market activity because then, aside from the traders, there will always be someone looking to put some money into bitAssets...and there will always be someone looking to take money out? There is no point in having bitAsset order books just so traders can trade back and forth with each other if there is no real use case for the asset they are trading. Now THAT would be fake users!
So tell me, what is wrong with offering a better interest rate to people who store some money in bitUSD instead of in the bank? It is very early in the game for cryptocurrencies right now. To attract regular people, we need to give some extra incentive. In the future, it may not be necessary. But at this point, it IS necessary. This is just smart business.
Lastly, no one is talking about "changing many rules". We are only talking about shifting a portion of the income that currently goes to the referral program (see below). This enables us to: 1) replenish the reserve pool 2.5x faster, 2) drive much more demand for bitAssets, and 3) make the referral program more effective by rewarding LTM accounts. This would be a huge win for all parties involved, and would be extremely bullish for BTS.
Current fee allocation:
20% -- network
80% -- referral
Proposed fee allocation:
50% -- network
20% -- referral program
20% -- interest to bitAsset holders
10% -- dividend to LTM accounts
sorry I don't think there is any help with this.
in fact I prefer bitasset holder should pay interest for shorters in many condition.
look at our SILVER , it's almost equal 1.2-1.3 real SILVER,
and don't foget 1 year ago bitUSD equal 1.1 fiat USD in a very long time.
it's very complex, let's just keep it simple, don't change anything.
Yeah, I believe that dividends should be distributed against both BTS and BitAsset holders. How much more should we incentivise holding bitAssets over BTS thpough?
I would argue perhaps we should offer 1% to anyone who holds BTS. It's a small amount but would be a great marketing tool and generate interest. Just like the dredit card companies like avertising 1% cashback on purchase.
Stay away from the +5% not because it sounds a certain way, but once you start promising percent points on things in a network that is based on set fees and not percent points, you will just be setting up the network for failure.What about 'x% on anything' a variable interest rate, or do you think this is more confusing than just 'earn a share of the BTS DEX profits' ?
Numbered your list for easier referencing.
- 1. Implement our profit sharing code thanks to Peerplays (http://www.peerplays.com) development
- 2. Implementing Chainbase (thanks to steem) so that we can have real trading tools in the GUI with historical charts and graphs. This will attract a lot of high end traders who want to be able to do analysis but cannot due to lack of metric tools in our GUI
My concern with the idea of paying interest to USD is that it incentivizes activity which hasn't been proven to generate profit for the Dex. While the idea the locked collateral reduces supply makes sense, I think it provides minimal price support as those creating the assets are already in for the long haul and aren't any more likely to hold because of their leveraged position. If any thing thing these people are now less likely to hold as they now the chance of selling against their will from a margin call. In addition if you view the amount to of bitasset as somewhat fixed (finite number of shorters with finite amount of funds) then increased holding of bitassets puts additional strain on those shorters in their efforts to provide liquidity.
IMO the end goal of any new incentive should be to make the Dex more profitable by increasing the number of actions and fees generated. I think increases in the speed which USD changes hands would be more beneficial than an increase in the amount held. I think the increase in liquidity lately has been encouraging and I think an incentive be to increase liquidity and market making might be a better choice. Just my thoughts. I don't want to discourage the pursuit of improvement, but at the same time wanted to express my concern.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?It's not a either or. We need both. We need traders and we holders. Traders don't want to hold assets, they want to arbitrage between assets. Holders want stability.
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
It's not a either or. We need both. We need traders and we holders. Traders don't want to hold assets, they want to arbitrage between assets. Holders want stability.That is it. Nothing more to say.
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
We could all discuss it in the next Bitshares hangout in person too.so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.
I know @kenCode and his team have a full plate of work, so I am doubtful on that basis alone he'll be interested in taking this on, but it never hurts to ask. IMO it's a worthy project that has great potential. Whether he agrees or wants to invest the effort to assess the code and then get a proposal written is any one's guess but his.
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.
We could all discuss it in the next Bitshares hangout in person too.so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.
I know @kenCode and his team have a full plate of work, so I am doubtful on that basis alone he'll be interested in taking this on, but it never hurts to ask. IMO it's a worthy project that has great potential. Whether he agrees or wants to invest the effort to assess the code and then get a proposal written is any one's guess but his.
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.
nope, not my idea, and I waste more than enough time on bts/projects :)
find a dev > get a quotation > then discuss > get shit done
-
I mean the balance between shorters and longers are dynamic,
you can't give a simple rule to encourage shorter or longer
but the free market have already give the best direct to keep the balance.
when you see the bid price of CNY/BTS market is much high than others, it means we need encourage CNY holders, you sell BTS for CNY then you get profit.
when you see the ask price of SILVER/BTS market is much lower than others, it means we need encourage SILVER shorters, you borrow SILVER, sell for BTS, then you get profit.
if you want to get rid of the price change risk of BTS, you just need to borrow CNY and SILVER, sell SILVER for CNY, arbit bot will take your order, and you will get your profit.
be a market maker, keep the balance, increase the liquid, you create value for Bitshares, and you get profit. this is the right way.
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed.
PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION OF TETHERS: The Site is an environment for the purchase and redemption of Tethers. Once you have Tethers, you can trade them, keep them, or use them to pay persons that will accept your Tethers. However, Tethers are not money and are not monetary instruments. They are also not stored value or currency.
There is no contractual right or other right or legal claim against us to redeem or exchange your Tethers for money. We do not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money. There is no guarantee against losses when you buy, trade, sell, or redeem Tethers.
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed. On the other hand if I get bitSILVER I am making a bet that it will go up and since I can't get real silver out of it it's not really an asset, is it?
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed. On the other hand if I get bitSILVER I am making a bet that it will go up and since I can't get real silver out of it it's not really an asset, is it?
And we can't get 'dev > quote > discuss > get shit down' done in a hangout instead of emailing a single company? I believe that the Bitshares hangouts are tremendously productive and more effective than emails.We could all discuss it in the next Bitshares hangout in person too.so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?
so... anyone?
Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.
I know @kenCode and his team have a full plate of work, so I am doubtful on that basis alone he'll be interested in taking this on, but it never hurts to ask. IMO it's a worthy project that has great potential. Whether he agrees or wants to invest the effort to assess the code and then get a proposal written is any one's guess but his.
find a dev > get a quotation > then discuss > get shit done
or discuss on a hangout and spin in cycles like this thread.
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed.
wrong, tether is not backed.QuotePURCHASE AND REDEMPTION OF TETHERS: The Site is an environment for the purchase and redemption of Tethers. Once you have Tethers, you can trade them, keep them, or use them to pay persons that will accept your Tethers. However, Tethers are not money and are not monetary instruments. They are also not stored value or currency.
There is no contractual right or other right or legal claim against us to redeem or exchange your Tethers for money. We do not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of Tethers by us for money. There is no guarantee against losses when you buy, trade, sell, or redeem Tethers.
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed. On the other hand if I get bitSILVER I am making a bet that it will go up and since I can't get real silver out of it it's not really an asset, is it?
Yes, it is really an asset. No, it is not silver or something backed by silver. It is an asset which value is pegged to value of silver.
...are backed 100% by actual assets in our reserve account.
Quote...are backed 100% by actual assets in our reserve account.
lol, what could possible go wrong here?
You want exposer to the value of silver not the actual metal. If you truly want silver go out and buy some physical silver. That applies to all the assests on the DEX. You are exposed to the underlining assets value, not physical properties. These are derivatives. Also if the value depended on a 3rd party having the physical good then that introduces counterparts risk and adds centralization which is goes against being a DEX.I want 1000 SILVER without interest even -1% interest, can anybody sell SILVER to me?
you don't need to encourage the shorter or the longer, you need to encourage the traders, reward the traders.
liquid is the real problem we need to resolve.
with good liquid, more people will accept holder bitasset, more people will accept shorter bitasset. this is what happened today in bitCNY/bitUSD
I will ask people borrow CNY/USD/SILVER..., and be a market maker in pairs: CNY/USD, USD/SILVER, CNY/SILVER,
and this will give you more profit than the poor interest.
Most new comers to DEX do not understand very well how bitAssets work. For example in my mind BitSilver should be backed by Silver (not BTS) and a broker of that asset should provide liquidity (maybe 1% over and 1% under the spot price for buy/sell). If I can't buy and sell at the current real market price or get that silver shipped to me, then what's the point of holding it?
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
No, I don't want exposure to the price. I want to invest in an asset, so if get USDT I am sure to get $1 for my 1 USDT because it's backed. On the other hand if I get bitSILVER I am making a bet that it will go up and since I can't get real silver out of it it's not really an asset, is it?
Yes, it is really an asset. No, it is not silver or something backed by silver. It is an asset which value is pegged to value of silver.
I know some of the long time members here have strong feelings about bitAssets, I am not trying to change that. But atm I don't see it as an asset.
And here is some other people view it: http://coinjournal.net/what-is-a-bitasset/ A bitasset is basically a derivative built on top of a cryptocurrency through the use of smart contracts. As a simple explanation, it’s useful to think of it as a bet...
as·set
ˈaset/
noun
noun: asset; plural noun: assets
a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
Yes, a lot. I don't negate that.Quote...are backed 100% by actual assets in our reserve account.
lol, what could possible go wrong here?
How much "interest" do our miners make daily? Do they want to share it with the users of their chain?Witnesses (what you're referring to as miners) draw funds from the reserve pool, we're talking about reallocating fees for the purpose of profit sharing for asset holders.
Or do they choose to keep all the freshly created BTS for themselves?
Your questions were answered long ago when you chose not to subsidize liquidity, and so the capable man who wanted to code liquidity incentives for us for free, left.
Back then (before we voted to give our miners a raise) we said it would be too dillutive to incentivize market makers. How hypocritical are we?
If you reward a short sale, you increase the price of the BTSLess BTS in circulation (more BTS locked up in bitAssets) means less BTS on the sell side thus easier to increase the BTS price.
If you pay interest for everyone who has bitAssets, then you will create bitAsset buy wall,
which will make it difficult to increase the BTS price.
That's why I do not like this idea.
But I think it would be most beneficial to pay dividends depending on the amount of collateral and open orders on DEX and only for LTM.
It should also be easier to implement.
Similar ideas were discussed here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23706.0.html
Anyway, first we have to be able to pay dividends or any other kind of simple profit sharing
If you reward a short sale, you increase the price of the BTSLess BTS in circulation (more BTS locked up in bitAssets) means less BTS on the sell side thus easier to increase the BTS price.
If you pay interest for everyone who has bitAssets, then you will create bitAsset buy wall,
which will make it difficult to increase the BTS price.
That's why I do not like this idea.
But I think it would be most beneficial to pay dividends depending on the amount of collateral and open orders on DEX and only for LTM.
It should also be easier to implement.
Similar ideas were discussed here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23706.0.html
Anyway, first we have to be able to pay dividends or any other kind of simple profit sharing
We also need to know more precisely what the monthly collected fees have been since inception of Bitshares 2.0. I asked in the dev channel and @Taconator has graciously offered to help within a week if no one else has already helped by then.
I have written up a BSIP for this feature, I'd greatly appreciate input, thanks! :)Great effort :) +5% +5% +5%
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bsip-019-draft-introducing-profit-sharing-dividends-to-bitshares
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/24
AFAIK the recent profit of our DAC stems from a giant refund paid by Xeroc's worker. We're far from a situation where the fees regularly exceed our costs.
Your BSIP lacks a solution to the Yield Harvesting problem.
AFAIK the recent profit of our DAC stems from a giant refund paid by Xeroc's worker. We're far from a situation where the fees regularly exceed our costs.Not so far actually. I burned 6.4M BTS and the revenue is 6.2M .. Also, those revenues distributed over multiple weeks would have resulted in a more continues revenue. Ultimately, the reserves *are* back to >1B BTS :D
Your BSIP lacks a solution to the Yield Harvesting problem.
AFAIK the recent profit of our DAC stems from a giant refund paid by Xeroc's worker. We're far from a situation where the fees regularly exceed our costs.Not so far actually. I burned 6.4M BTS and the revenue is 6.2M .. Also, those revenues distributed over multiple weeks would have resulted in a more continues revenue. Ultimately, the reserves *are* back to >1B BTS :D
Your BSIP lacks a solution to the Yield Harvesting problem.
Yield harvesting is a problem, and I still don't see why holding BTS should make you hold more BTS later on ..dividends are paid by "reduced" supply.
AFAIK the recent profit of our DAC stems from a giant refund paid by Xeroc's worker. We're far from a situation where the fees regularly exceed our costs.The previous estimate of 1 million BTS in fees per month is approx $320k, given that value was $6k when this thread started I believe the proposal is even more viable. It's up to the committee to figure out fees pegged to the dollar/cny so that we have accurate witness pay (and increased profitability of the DEX).
Your BSIP lacks a solution to the Yield Harvesting problem.
The BSIP doesn't provide a solution to Yield Harvesting because it doesn't create the issue in the first place. Profits would be sharedropped onto asset holders on a scheduled basis; this proposal is not vulnerable to the 'Yield Harvesting' issue that 'Socialized yield' was.
The BSIP doesn't provide a solution to Yield Harvesting because it doesn't create the issue in the first place. Profits would be sharedropped onto asset holders on a scheduled basis; this proposal is not vulnerable to the 'Yield Harvesting' issue that 'Socialized yield' was.
Please explain. AFAICS BSIP-0019 proposes to pay dividends on bitassets (among others).
What stops me from using my BTS for shorting bitassets into existence and keeping them in my wallet, with the goal of collecting dividends for them?
The BSIP doesn't provide a solution to Yield Harvesting because it doesn't create the issue in the first place. Profits would be sharedropped onto asset holders on a scheduled basis; this proposal is not vulnerable to the 'Yield Harvesting' issue that 'Socialized yield' was.
Please explain. AFAICS BSIP-0019 proposes to pay dividends on bitassets (among others).
What stops me from using my BTS for shorting bitassets into existence and keeping them in my wallet, with the goal of collecting dividends for them?
There's nothing preventing you locking up your BTS as smartcoins for the long term, by doing so you are removing BTS from the liquid supply and become eligible for earning dividends.
To avoid abuse of this mechanism we could evaluate the average asset holdings since the last dividend payment or only allocate dividends for the time that these assets have been in an user's wallet for (if the user has held the coins 14 of 30 days in a 30day dividend schedule, they only receive the 14days worth of dividends).
What stops me from using my BTS for shorting bitassets into existence and keeping them in my wallet, with the goal of collecting dividends for them?
There's nothing preventing you locking up your BTS as smartcoins for the long term, by doing so you are removing BTS from the liquid supply and become eligible for earning dividends.
To avoid abuse of this mechanism we could evaluate the average asset holdings since the last dividend payment or only allocate dividends for the time that these assets have been in an user's wallet for (if the user has held the coins 14 of 30 days in a 30day dividend schedule, they only receive the 14days worth of dividends).
I don't know what payouts are we talking about here if in another thread core bitshares dev complains that bitshares reserve can't afford hiring a team of devs to fix essential flaws.It's absurd to suggest that the BTS DEX cannot afford developers, the reserve pool has hundreds of millions of Dollars in BTS at its disposal. The higher BTS gets in marketcap, the higher the reserve pool becomes.
I don't know what payouts are we talking about here if in another thread core bitshares dev complains that bitshares reserve can't afford hiring a team of devs to fix essential flaws.It's absurd to suggest that the BTS DEX cannot afford developers, the reserve pool has hundreds of millions of Dollars in BTS at its disposal. The higher BTS gets in marketcap, the higher the reserve pool becomes.
I don't know what payouts are we talking about here if in another thread core bitshares dev complains that bitshares reserve can't afford hiring a team of devs to fix essential flaws.It's absurd to suggest that the BTS DEX cannot afford developers, the reserve pool has hundreds of millions of Dollars in BTS at its disposal. The higher BTS gets in marketcap, the higher the reserve pool becomes.
So why not start spending these funds for hiring a team of professional developers first?
+5%I don't know what payouts are we talking about here if in another thread core bitshares dev complains that bitshares reserve can't afford hiring a team of devs to fix essential flaws.It's absurd to suggest that the BTS DEX cannot afford developers, the reserve pool has hundreds of millions of Dollars in BTS at its disposal. The higher BTS gets in marketcap, the higher the reserve pool becomes.
So why not start spending these funds for hiring a team of professional developers first?
You don't hire someone without first coming up with tasks for them to perform. I have created a BSIP (working on splitting it in two), thus this feature request has taken a step towards potentially being developed.
Worker proposals can now be created from within the GUI, not just the CLI - we'll likely see more activity.
Point is, if someone's saying that we can't afford 'x' then they're wrong, people just need to take the initiative to work on proposals.
...So as to incentivize voting?
...So as to incentivize voting?
This will only incentivize uneducated / "random" voting, people will start voting for the first random guy thy find in order to get the "free money"
then why not instead of voting, we put up a rating system just like ebay or amazon. it might be based on reputation or based on ratings on the value of the proposal.
It's like voting, but with a rating system, people are incentivised why they are voting or rating the proposal. Raters/voters are given tokens according to the value they bring into the discussion.
Votes are cast with the total rating value at the end of the rating/voting period.
Just like steemit, we can create a new asset just for the purpose of incentivising the raters. That way, there will be intelligent discussion instead of just random voting.