Quote from: Pheonike on April 12, 2017, 08:17:23 am

Quote from: sahkan on April 12, 2017, 07:59:37 am

Quote from: alt on April 12, 2017, 05:37:19 am

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.

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?

Do you want the asset or the cash equivalent?  Once you get into fiat and physical you will always have a counter party risk.  So you have to decide do which do you trust more, the blockchain or or another party to secure and maintain the asset for you.

Quote from: alt on April 12, 2017, 05:37:19 am

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.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

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

MLM is great when you have a product that has a large audience. First, I don't think the market for traders who want to use the DEX is significant enough to make a large dent for MLM. Also the MLM is not really MLM since it's only 1 level. You don't anything for the people the person you brought in brings in. 

Paying out dividends is a much larger audience to reach. Most people are lazy. They want to park there money somewhere and gain some amount of interest or a dividend. If we want to attract traders then a bond market with familiar margin trading is better option.

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!

I agree with the paying interest to those who have collateral in the system. I think the LTM changes can be on table. I don't believe LTM is core feature of BTS that is sat in stone therefore  it should be able to be changed or removed by user user consensus with a vote. That's why we have voting so when add features that make sense and and remove features that are not performing to expectations.

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 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.

LTM can still offer lower fees overall and perhaps no fees when buying bitaseests with bts.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Deposit didn't world sent 50 bts, never arrived.

Or go to the  Deposit/withdraw, and select block trades as transfer service. Use the internal conversion option.

https://bitshares.org/wallet/#/deposit-withdraw/