Quote from: tonyk on March 21, 2016, 05:56:52 pm

First + 1 + 1 + 1  for going ahead with this.


 I definitely think you should use bitBTC as collateral. This also means btc should not be part of the index. [Using bitUSD is the only thing better but you will just not find people (in crypto space) believing that all/top crypto will go down against fiat, so no shorters..]

Why bitBTC :
- it is easy to bet on BTC as it is- you just hold btc. And 99.9% of the people already hold btc before even coming into BTS.
- you will have much more people interested in betting on top 20 cryptos against BTC (as opposed to against BTS)
- for the shorters - being short the index against BTS as easy as pie - you short bitBTC to yourself and use the bitBTC to short the bitTop20

I am absolutely positive going with BTS as collateral will be a big mistake. Drop me PM if you do not understand/want me to expand on the reasoning above.

I would prefer to create the debate in this thread than move it in a private channel.

Don't you think that we lack of liquidity in the BitShares BTC market to really kick off the Bit20 ? Maybe if we had already the sidechain in place ... I don't want to wait we reach high liquidity in all our major smartcoins market to see grow the BIT20 but rather be able to start creating liquidity since the very first day.

I thought BTS was a good choice but the debate is pretty much alive !!

BTS has higher volatility than BTC, so more oportunities to make a profit will arise for buyers, sellers and shorters as the price spikes up and down.
That's also basically why I though BitUSD wouldn't be a great choice, I don't see anyone in his right mind shorting BIT20 Vs BitUSD.

I think this:

- for the shorters - being short the index against BTS as easy as pie - you short bitBTC to yourself and use the bitBTC to short the bitTop20

So in other words -  in reality the lack of liquidity in bitBTC does not matter much. You do that to open a short position in bittop20 without needing any bitBTC on the market. Same goes to closing it - you free your bitBTC from the collateral and close your short bitBTC with them.

First + 1 + 1 + 1  for going ahead with this.


 I definitely think you should use bitBTC as collateral. This also means btc should not be part of the index. [Using bitUSD is the only thing better but you will just not find people (in crypto space) believing that all/top crypto will go down against fiat, so no shorters..]

Why bitBTC :
- it is easy to bet on BTC as it is- you just hold btc. And 99.9% of the people already hold btc before even coming into BTS.
- you will have much more people interested in betting on top 20 cryptos against BTC (as opposed to against BTS)
- for the shorters - being short the index against BTS as easy as pie - you short bitBTC to yourself and use the bitBTC to short the bitTop20

I am absolutely positive going with BTS as collateral will be a big mistake. Drop me PM if you do not understand/want me to expand on the reasoning above.

I also have this nagging thought/feeling that it should probably not be done by the witnesses...

Some sort of bonded authorities(s)/guilds?

One who wants to be a 'side-chain signer' puts a BTS bond in a special bond account  and gets proportional (to the amount put) signing power for those side chain transfers .[otherwise the bond account is controlled by everyone (aka every BTS holder) and requires 50% approval to be spend[ for the case it is needed as an insurance bond], otherwise it is a vesting balance maturing back to the person who made it for say 9 mo.

Another interesting twist is those bonds to be in bitSideChainToken and to actually be also used for the token received by such cross-chain transfers.... so when you transfer from ETH you get bitETH from this bond fund and people having put those bitETH now control ETH on the eth blockchain.

@karnal Strongly agree!

+ 1

Quote from: tonyk on March 19, 2016, 05:13:16 pm

Quote from: abit on March 19, 2016, 03:15:41 pm

Quote from: BTSdac on March 19, 2016, 01:00:13 pm

Refund worker only has 32M voter , oh oh ,

Don't panic.
After next hard fork there will be much more.

Yes I was wondering the same [without sitting and actually calculating it]  BM is so sure after negative voting is thrown out it will be much easier for workers to be voted in, but all those negative votes for the refund workers will be gone too. so what is the actual net result?

Result: harder to vote in a worker. How did you got the feeling that "BM is so sure after negative voting is thrown out it will be much easier for workers to be voted in"?

//Update: removing negative voting is not for easier dilution, but for better security.

I get the better security argument and I somewhat agree with it. The question was have you actually calculated is it gonna be easier or harder to vote in workers after negative voting is removed? ( assuming we are having the same votes as today and the negative votes removed)

Quote from: compumatrix on March 18, 2016, 04:35:24 am

Quote from: bytemaster on February 19, 2016, 09:04:16 pm

I would like to propose a new feature for BTS that CNX will provide free of charge if a hard fork is approved.

We would like to allow any market pair to reward users who provide liquidity in that market. The feature would work as follows:

Every order that is filled after being open on the books for at least 10 minutes earns shares a reward pool. The shares earned are proportional to the size of the order filled.

Any user *or* worker can contribute funds to the reward pool. These funds can be denominated in any asset specified by the issuer.

At most once per day users may convert their shares in the reward pool to a pro-rata share of the rewards.

The asset issuer has the ability to enable this feature for any market their asset trades in and to specify the asset used to fund the reward pool.

With this feature Open Ledger *could* pay out OBITS to those who provide liquidity in the OPEN.BTC / BTS market.
BTS can vote for a worker to provide liquidity in the BTS / USD and BTS / CNY markets.

It is possible that trades in the BTS / OPEN.BTC market could earn rewards from both BTS and OBITS *if* shareholders voted to subsidize this market.

Assuming we implement this feature in the BTS / USD market and voters approve workers funding this at a rate of 2.5 BTS / sec (50% of allowed dilution) and the internal exchange had $100,000 of daily volume then users trading on the internal exchange would see a 1% more than they would get by trading off chain. If daily volume was $50,000 then they would see a 2% profit over doing the same trades off-chain.

The impact of this should be a major influx of new traders who can make more money trading on the internal exchange than the external exchange. This added liquidity will dramatically tighten the USD / BTS peg and give shorters much more confidence.

This implementation will require 3 new operations on the blockchain:

1. create_liquidity_reward_pool issuer ASSET FUND_ASSET MARKET_ASSET    ie: openledger OBIT OPEN.BTC OPEN.USD
2. fund_liquidity_reward_pool funding_account AMOUNT FUND_ASSET ASSET MARKET_ASSET
3. claim_liquidity_rewards username AMOUNT FUND_ASSET  ASSET MARKET_ASSET

It will also create a new worker type that can direct BTS to any fund where FUND_ASSET is BTS.



Note: CNX reserves the right to retract this offer or request payment for adding this feature. This proposal does not commit CNX to develop the feature if we decide to pursue other options.

Excellent proposal.

I believe the proposal you've cited is outdated. Since then, if I'm not mistaken bytemaster has shown support for the direction this thread has been going, and has chimed in to state that he believes the reward calculations we'd been discussing should be done off-chain.  Also, one of the things we've concluded on this thread, with some guidance from Nasdaq's liquidity incentive program, is that instead of rewarding trades (which we can't guarantee won't be gamed), we should simply reward liquidity (i.e. placement of orders on the book).  In which case, a share of rewards would not be earned when a fill takes place.  Instead, rewards would be earned based on scores during any given period, with the scores calculated based on how many shares were on the book, for how long, and how close to the price feed.  Hopefully we can build on this and move it toward reality ASAP.

+ 1
Yes the proposal in its initial form is pretty bad actually....and the people who really care about seeing this really working.... as in working good in practice, have thrown there two cents to make it a decent if not great solution.[we still have our own biases on which will work best, but the main point is - there is a much better way to do this and the better solution is not that much harder to do... ]

Quote from: tonyk on March 17, 2016, 07:09:32 pm

My response to earlier xeroc's post is pretty close to a pseudo code... reposting will not help reducing the pages from 12...quite the opposite.

I think your psuedo code is a good starting point.

Quote from: tonyk on February 23, 2016, 07:25:07 pm

All numbers/percent are parameters adjustable by the committee (for the bitAssets).

To qualify for the reward (calculated and paid  every 7 days).
1.An account must have the best bid (or ask) for min 5% of the time.[combined for all qualified orders of his during those 7 days]
To qualify:
2.A sell order should be no more than 6% above the peg; a buy order should be no more than 1% from the peg price.
3. The order should be the best bid or ask. (1)
4.The order should be for min of 150 bitUSD [it can be bigger but if the order is  for bigger amount, credit is given for max of 150 biUSD] (2)

Every 7 day the script is run and the funds are divided between accounts having placed qualified MM orders:
- proportional to the time the orders were on the order book and met all other criteria above.
- for the full 150 bitUSD and/or following rule (2)

(1)Orders (say N=10 times) N times smaller than the market maker's order at better prices do not violate the best bid/ask condition.
(2.)The MM in regular stock market place both bid and ask orders to qualify; if we want to give the reward for just a single side we have to weight the order toward the other side of the order book, or some other way. Say MM1 places just a buy order - it is given credit only for the sum of sell orders falling within the max spread (5% spread max in the example above)

Quote

Nasdaq is incentivizing the display of orders for (a) 500 shares at the best bid and 500 shares at the best offer, 30% of the time, and (b) 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best bid and 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best offer, 90% of the time.  I don't think we need to specify a minimum number of shares or what % of the time they need to satisfy the above conditions, but perhaps we could simply make the reward proportional to the length of time MMs have orders on the books, the size of the orders, and the distance from the price feed.  And maybe we should require that orders be on the book for a minimum period of time, as some have already suggested. 

I don't however agree that there should be a 150 bitUSD limit for an order to gain points for the reward. Isn't a 1000 bitUSD order more valuable to BTS shareholders (and users) than a 150 bitUSD order? It seems wrong.. the person providing more liquidity should earn a bigger portion of the rewards.

1. All numbers here are just that - numbers. I see them, as explained in the post, as parameters for the committee to adjust as more info is gathered by watching the algo and its performance meeting the reality.

That being said:
- the logic behind 'min 5% of the time being the best bid ask' - 5% do seem low (I actually think we should start with something like 10% - BUT keep in mind it limits the max allowable number of MMakers that get paid - setting it 30% will mean a max of int [3.33] of 3 accounts can be paid in a given market. Do we want that? Idk, seems too low to me.

-there is a very good reason why Nasdaq pays for 500 shares and do not pay proportionally more  for 600 or especially 6000 shares. - The idea is not to encourage big orders for relatively short periods but orders with enough size all the time....

-on the size of "150 bitUSD" - it is my personal (subjective) bare min. number. if we can start with 500 it would be better of course.... My only note here is to keep in mind this is MIN to qualify for the reward...one would  think that any reasonable market maker will start with at 2-3 times (maybe more) bigger orders, just so he must not constantly 'refill' the orders, as the already placed orders get matched.

2bts