"You can care about the multitudes of decentralized exchanges that are yet to possess volume OR stability. Or you can depend on the n number of centralized solutions already  in existence. This was solely a discussion of possibilities and you may or may not shoot them down with your "kind" words.  Fact is, there isn't really a cross currency asset exchange in existence as of now and this is solely my attempt at pointing that out"

So if  I  myself have to put it in  kinder words for you, it will sound like:

"Here is our  solution to your poor folks problems. We can have a centralized, hub where all 3? IOU exchanges meat"

For reference on our work, see our bot working 20% of the time, but yet we consider it about finished?

And then again, what was the question? - "Do we like it" Just a guess.

What the hell are you talking about?  Why would they have to do anything different than what they are ALREADY doing to enable their users to trade POLONIEX.BTS IOU tokens?   

 

Nothing different man...[and I never said preventing trading of derivatives on anything is something preventable/stoppable.... hell BTS is trading such derivatives on USD, CNY...anything we chose to for that matter.... but we mainly do it cause those are bad...]

Well nothing else other than a small, very small, tiny one might say difference... one should run the BTS wallet to deposit / give polo their real BTS and get the fakes/derivatives...[and pay BTS a fee. And not just transfer but actually go and BUY their UIA in the market. This is no different from now, according to your thought process] or even better - they (polo) will have to integrate BTS wallet into their interface, just so people can deposit BTS?

Nice!
I think...
I am not sure...should I dare consider it good without tbone's approval???


PS
The other alternative is even nicer (monsterer's explanation up thread). Polo is so big on the new BTS/dShares. They buy a ton of BTS (from the DEX where else?), and start acting as a gateway just so their customers can freely buy POLO.BTS on their exchange.

Quote from: Ander on February 18, 2016, 06:58:17 pm

That is part of it but not all.

It also represents stake in the ownership of the network, and thus its profits.


Imagine if there was a crypto you could own that would give you a portion of poloniex's profit?  BTS is like that, but for the Bitshares decentralized exchange.  This has the possibility to become exciting if the exchange becomes heavily used, even though its not right now.  (Though at least its use looks to have grown some in the past several months).

another excellent point, @Ander. All the more reason to do everything we can to encourage more trading volume. i trade every day in at least three of the more liquid markets, and despite consistently setting the highest bid and lowest ask, i'm only finding myself executing about one to two dozen trades per day. Still, we at least have functioning markets with cool assets, so i just think it's a matter of time. Once i have more free time this summer, i intend to put together a market maker bot to automatic most of what i'm currently doing manually. If anyone has some simple python code to do that, it would be much appreciated

Our bright start xeroc has done this too . 
https://github.com/xeroc/python-graphenelib    -grapheme exchange in particular
documentation: http://python-graphenelib.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

You only need to add the logic for placing the highest bid/lowest ask. But this should not be hard.

Hey @tonyk

Have you considered dropping the fungibility of bitAssets for your new chain, and instead go for a metatrader4 compatible platform? That would make it distinct enough from bitshares and would attract a lot of interest from the forex community.

edit: I think you might struggle to raise funding for development otherwise, because to the outside world, your existing proposition looks very similar to bitshares indeed.

Cheers, Paul.

Have you considered dropping the fungibility of bitAssets for your new chain
1. It is not MY new chain... it is OUR new chain...That is the idea at least.

2. I also know that you have given a fair amount of thought to non fungible assets (and so have I but, unfortunately for me to no satisfaction of my own min. requirements ).

...because to the outside world, your existing proposition looks very similar to bitshares indeed.
3. Well, How can I possibly claim otherwise, when the whole point is... getting rid of what is bad in BTS and improving on what is good...when you truly boil it down.

Interesting. From first look I don't find anything totally unacceptable.(the benefits are clear, I am talking about non market based approaches and bts reserve fund taking the risk that market participants refuse to take)
 Especially keeping in mind BM wants to sponsor market makers using dilution/workers. I personally find more value in tightly pegged and available bitAssets.(your proposal)


What happens after this 1y lock period if the demand for new bitUSD is higher than the new willing fund providers for pool B ?

You could count on my support to run a witness node, or even host a webwallet and faucet.  In fact if one of the current bridges is not interested in supporting the new chain, then I would be more than willing to work to develop a bridge between other crypto and this new chain.  I could not touch fiat unfortunately.

I still have concerns, but I think it would be a really great experiment, and if my concerns are unfounded then it would be a superior implementation than the current system.

I think I have found a better way to express my concern as well.  In the current system bitUSD is a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS.  Since this BTS can currently be sold, anyone wishing to exit bitshares can sell BTS directly.  Thus someone who is long bitUSD, that wants to exit bitshares will sell their bitUSD for BTS and convert their BTS to whatever other currency they wish.  There are two distinct markets. We have a derivative tied to USD and a backing asset that is not tied to USD.

Under this proposal bitUSD would still be a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS.  However because BTS can not be traded for actual other currencies, in effect the backing asset would be the externally trading asset.  We would end up with a derivative that is backed by itself.  I cannot view such a system as stable.

Actually I translated you concerns to exactly that form after your initial post. Self-chaining I call it. But I do believe you can treat the current system as self-chained as well. BTS is backing the value of bitUSD and the value of BTS is derived from bitUSD being valuable and useful.
To alleviate your concerns to some extend regarding dShares - They are not totally untradeable. they are shares that are supposed to be offered to the members of the co-op first (so in the own DEX). Additionally one can sell(transfer) his whole account to anyone.

Quote from: tonyk on February 17, 2016, 03:09:13 am

No responses whatsoever?

Tony, I replied earlier. Did you see it?

No, I saw it but it was about the black swan. Black swan are a problem for bitAssets in general and as we deal with such assets they do apply but are not specifically caused by what I suggested.  I was asking for comments about problems caused by proposal or in connection with its design.

Quote from: tonyk on February 16, 2016, 07:28:11 pm

Important points:
In case of liquidation the collateral provided by the bridge is used to cover the losses (if any) first [before the collateral from the 'collateral sponsor'] .
The loss for the bridge is fictional BTW. That loss is exactly offset by the same gain of holding BTC received by the customer requesting the bridge from BTC to bitBTC.

I don't think the loss is fictional - If a customer sells us 1 bitBTC, and then the price of BTS drops, we start to incur liquidation risk as the value of the collateral drops, whereas the customer does not, since we sent him 1 genuine BTC.

Wait a minute. I am not trying to solve all bridges issues real or perceived. For example I cannot help if a bridge is reluctant to hold  BTS or BTC. In your example above it is easy - you close your short with the bitBTC received and you end up with pure BTS. If this somehow is a problem for the bridge I cannot help.

What I am trying to solve with the collateral sponsors proposal is - the need for the bridges to come up with 2x in BTS for collateral when a customer wants to go from BTC into bitBTC. Isn't this the main reason why no bridge - you or anybody else even thinks about providing BTC->bitBTC bridge? The proposal effectively locks as much BTS as if you sold BTS for the BTC received at the current price and nothing more. Isn't this a good deal. This is effectively equal to what happen if it was a bridge for  BTS<->BTC.

Quote from: Pheonike on February 16, 2016, 07:32:00 pm

Or maybe this split the difference. The bond puts up half of the collateral and pool the other half. Profits are split 50/50 for asset sells.

No actually it seems in order to align the risk/reward profiles:

Negative price movement (aka BTS price going down in comparison to BTC):
- the bridge should get 100% of the  loss due to price movement .(its position is fully hedged so no real loss)
- collateral sponsors should get just a flat fee (or interest).
- Every attempt should be made to liquidated before 100% of bridges collateral is needed to cover any loss on the 'short bitBTC' position.

Positive price movement (aka BTS price going up in comparison to BTC):
- the collateral sponsors should get 100% of the profit due to price movement .(bridge's position is fully hedged so no gains expected, or deserved)
- The bridge can get the fee the sponsors get in the opposite scenario (just a thought).


This sounds too good to be true actually. Wish somebody can check/verify the above!!! @arhag (wish you are around) @theoretical (wish you are not busy coding 100% of the time)
Technical implementation and who controls (able to willing close) the position, are big remaining issues. Seems that the position should be controlled by the bridge, and force liquidated by the blockchain.

No responses whatsoever?
This is pretty odd as this is an issue existing mainly in the current BTS system (and just a 'if need be, probably not; training wheel for the system proposed here).
I should probably move those 2 post in a thread of themselves and see if they receive the same "no reaction" response.
For the love of god, you should all be jumping with joy if the above analyses are correct... or someone should take a direct stub at them if they are/or might be wrong... This non response can only mean, this project is...well I will not say it. But just this time.