Ok I missed that. I guess your model would require another 101 delegate system for each DAC and all the hassle and expense that entails. It could also diminish the network effect of single blockchain would get & the individual DACs might still be be exposed to BTSX failure risk. 

If it's a user issued asset like on NXT, NXT only benefits from transaction fees. The CAP of the user issued asset doesn't add to the CAP of NXT just like MaidSafecoin is actually worth more than Mastercoin itself.

So putting it all on one blockchain maximises network effect & gives BTS shareholders maximum benefit from what would have been the CAP of individual DACs as well as the increase in CAP from anybody purchasing BitAssets. Not sure though.

Delegates are obviously required to produce the blocks in any new DAC due to DPOS, but that will be true of every single third party DAC which is created in either system.

If the user issued asset is purchased with BitUSD and that BitUSD has been on-ramped into bitsharex from fiat currencies, then surely the asset's CAP *does* add to the worth of the entire bitsharesx DAC?

Each new BitUSD purchased adds at least that amount to the CAP of a DAC.

An outsider buying $10 million BitUSD today would raise the CAP of BTSX by at least $10 million or more.

So competing DACs would rather have their own 'X'USD adding value to their own DAC than use BitUSD from BTSX. Which is why we'd having competing BitAssets if we didn't merge & have everyone's interest aligned with people using BitAssets on BTS is my understanding.

But in a parallel argument, each asset (representing a DAC in my suggested model) on bitsharesX increases in CAP exactly the same way as shares are purchased?

There's been a lot of talk recently about preventing the various DACs from competing with each other, by merging them all into Bitshares. The DACs would be competing if each one of them (being blockchains in their own right), had to implement its own, completely separate BitUSD. This would indeed be disastrous and confusing, since you'd have a set of differently priced(!) and differently liquid BitUSD markets for each asset.

What I don't really understand is why there isn't a feature in the core to allow cross-chain atomic operations, then you could still have each DAC be its own blockchain (since they need to store their state somehow), have the asset which represents the DAC listed as a plain user created asset on the main bitsharesX DAC, but also allow operations on the local DAC's blockchain to be synchronized atomically with the bitsharesX DAC blockchain when needed - for example, paying dividends to asset holders, or a unlocking a purchase of music via BitUSD.

That way you can keep the separation of concerns of having a blockchain per DAC and also pave the way for non dacsunlimited 3rd party DACs to have the same advantage of sharing a nice, singular, liquid BitUSD market.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Cheers, Paul.

Whatever you do, do not allow duplicate asset names - this is plaguing the NXT asset exchange. Someone will launch a genuine asset, then a scammer will launch an asset with a duplicate name, priced at the same amount to take advantage of people who don't look the asset up by ID.

If you want to elect a delegate just with your stake you will currently need 6.28% of the total BTSX stake.
This is the stake voting for 101th delegate at the moment.
You can check the status at http://www.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates .

Ahh, ok - so as a delegate the proportion of BTSX you hold does not dictate your pay? But in order to be voted in, the weight of the voter's vote is dictated by their BTSX holdings?

How come this reminds me of mining hardware manufacturers.. lol

Thanks for the insides .. I am pretty sure .. writing trading software is non of my business -- I'll stick with engineering then .. Still interesting to see how trading software works ..

Don't be put off - if you can find a market inefficiency, exploit it. It's better to start of exploring this by trading by hand, though.

already read those articles .. I like them .. nice overview ..

Still .. what's the marketing_maker bot
https://github.com/freetradebots/btsx_bots/blob/master/bots/market_maker.py
doing exactly? and how can that bot gain profits?

Cool!

Erm, looking at the code it's placing two order either side of the price feed with the spread being some percentage value. Simple market maker. Would be surprised if that is profitable long term.

Market makers make little amounts of money constantly in mean-reverting markets, then when a strong trend occurs, they tend to lose it all and then some.