When a sane company makes a referral program, they give away a fraction of a fraction of their profit, which they would not have without referral. Giving away 80% of the whole revenue is S T U P I D.

Making arrangements which makes you liable for a life time is also stupid. In RL, a company makes a lifetime contract only when they know, that their counter party will not be able to follow this contract for long. They always have a condition which releases them from liability.

Ok, it is absolutely essential that registering a new account is free and painless process, and those who help to make it like this should be rewarded. Compensate them whatever they spent to register a new user from user fees, give xx% on top of that (if they brought a valuable customer), but finally there should be a condition when the deal is done, and 100% of customer's fees should go to the pot since then.

Quote from: yvv on April 11, 2017, 12:18:45 pm

Quote from: kani on April 11, 2017, 11:59:31 am

Quote from: yvv on April 11, 2017, 11:50:17 am

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. 

No, he does not owe nothing to nobody. -$10 in one account and +$10 in another account totals to zero.

If the collateralized debt could be erased simply by moving bitUSD around, don't you think MPA would have failed a loooooong time ago?

No collateralized debt was even created in this case to start with. Debt is created at the moment when borrowed asset actually changes hands. Sorry that you don't understand such a basic thing.

Quote from: yvv on April 11, 2017, 03:11:11 am

Quote from: kani on April 11, 2017, 01:51:06 am

Quote from: yvv on April 11, 2017, 01:47:54 am

Quote

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And giving away 80% of BTS revenue to referrals is just stupid.

Maybe it would be good to put a default value in there for the complete newbie who just want to run a bot quickly and then once he has more experience, he can easily tinker with it?

No, this would not be good, because a spread you wan to put strongly depends on current order book in a market you want to trade.

Liquidity on bitCNY and bitUSD improved a lot during last year. Other assets will hopefully catch up.

Quote from: yvv on April 02, 2017, 03:49:52 pm

Quote from: mea123 on April 02, 2017, 03:01:04 pm

when I said I dont care about commission low/ high, I did not mean that the low commission should be changed at all. I only meant to say, what does a low commission help, if there are no trader, even ZERO commission would not help
because what is lagging is what is lagging
Liquidity which would make volume trading possible and this is what BTS and DEX needs, also it seems the need of awareness!

It looks like you want to have a broker with a bag of money, who instantly fills your orders for you. This is unlikely going to happen on DEX. Unlike forex, there is no broker on DEX, all market participants are equal, that is why it is called decentralized. Liquidity on DEX will come only with mass adoption by small traders. This is a price you pay for decentralization. And guys with suitcases of money will probably stick with centralized exchanges where they have total control over market.

perhaps I misunderstand decentralized , still centralized or decentralized without liquidity their is no market..and when I say liquidity I mean members which are participating in the market..
this means we have to have more exposure to reach more ppl, I know this will not happen over night, but I feel that OL is not doing enough to attract new members..I might be wrong, but thats what
is what I feel ....I dont see OL to much in the news, whatever kind of Crypto news, no OL or very very seldom..how comes

I agree that OL could do a better job in boosting up liquidity on DEX using funds which they raised from ICOs.