http://www.coindesk.com/gemini-exchange-new-trading-fees/

Winklevoss writes:

    "We have decided to adjust our existing flat fee schedule to a real-time, dynamic maker-taker fee schedule."

Adopting the maker-taker fee system is aimed to encourage 'makers', who add liquidity to the exchange, which offers a BTC/USD market aimed at institutional investors.

Cameron Winklevoss explained that because liquidity-making orders do not fill immediately and they bear more market risk, the company "believes in offering greater incentives to makers".

To kick off the promotion, the new schedule will be available to all Gemini users for 30 days, during which traders will receive a 0.15% rebate on all liquidity-making trades and be charged 0.15% on all liquidity-taking trades.

I'm not exactly pro dilution, I just think we only need to manage our funds carefully and support what we need and not just do random stuff.

I just want to understand the members who vote no for all worker proposal; Assume we have zero dilution. No worker is available. We don't have dilution any more.

Now what? What do we do? What does BitShares do? What do you expect to happen? Users and adopters will come? What do you think we should focus now? What do you want to do? Nothing? How do we improve, how do we bring new users? We wait or do you have a plan? Will it just get traded? What should we focus on? What can we do with no funds? Will liquidity increase by itself? Can we increase volume and liquidity? Can we do something positive for BitShares with no dilution? If so, how? Of course we, as a community, shouldn't rely solely on dilution, I agree with that, but then, what would you suggest?


I'm not judging you, I just want to understand your point of view, because currently, I don't. If we have no dilution, what do we do then? What would you suggest BitShares should focus on if we had no dilution?

I want to hear your opinions and plans so I can understand your point of view on this, please.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/45p92a/strong_indications_that_uphold_formerly/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/460vtm/uphold_is_solvent_again/

So they first were insolvent, now solvent again? Most of their assets - that got them in the headlines if im not mistaken - are their own crypto tokens. 107M out of their 113M in assets is their own crypto.

Is anyone else more into this? It's strange. From what I gathered and read in some comments it seems one big move in price could potentially put their costumers assets in trouble?

Anyone?

According to Taulant on 4th December's Hangout, private alpha was supposed to start within a month. Two have passed, does anyone have any news on that? How's it going? Anyone participating on the private alpha?

@monsterer @Shentist could you provide us with any info since you're partnering with Bitsaphire?

I think it's a more appropriate way to call it. As Dan said, nothing's really free, it's just rate limited. Some parts I couldn't get, etiher because I didn't understand or because they were cut or caused by Mumble issues where it wasn't clear. I still think it can get you an idea of what it is. Whoever is "someone else" sorry for not knowing who you are lol I don't recall who it is, sorry.

Starts at 22:50

Bytemaster: Could we imagine a scenario where the blockchain had no fees, at all? And instead all accounts were rate limited, proportional to their balance?

Fuzzy: What do you mean rate limited? As far as...

Bytemaster: As far as viewing your BitShares as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So someone who owns 1% of the BitShares [network], could consume 1% of the network capacity

Fuzzy: So kinda like miners and mining pools?

Bytemaster: Completely unrelated to that.

Fuzzy: You're talking about like the network capacity as far as, what would someone get for having 1% of the network capacity, would they be able the chance the fees according to what.. like a service.. [interrupted]

Bytemaster: There are no fees. Imagine a system where, if you own 1%, you can consume 1% of every block, worst case. Think of it another way, imagine it's a... everyone's doing timeshare on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain's space when they want to do a transaction and with this method no one will be able to flood the network because they can consume their allotted allocation of the bandwidth but not everyone wants to use the network at the same time so the network can support regular users transacting more or less whenever they want. The only thing it won't allow you to do is to flood the network with a large amount [of transactions].

Fuzzy: How would the profitability be found there?

Bytemaster: Profitability comes from network effect more than anything else. The tiny little amounts that we're collecting in fees are insignificant to (last/lost?) network effect and our complexity.

Someone else: How do witnesses get paid?

Bytemaster: Same way they do now, with dilution.

Fuzzy: But it would always dilute instead of burning any?

Bytemaster: Yes. Effectively recognizing the fact we could create and exchange that had no fees gets (didn't get this word, "something" abused?) and is completely decentralized and where people would come and use the exchange if we wanted to have some fees on market orders and that would be our only fee source, we could do that, versus right now we have people saying "Hey I don't want to build on your exchange" because people don't like paying a fraction of a cent to cancel their order.

Someone else (Data?): What would happen if a group of whales got together to absorb a lot of bandwidth would that be able to lock out people with very small amounts of shares in the network from transacting or would slow them down?

Bytemaster: There are algorithms that we can use to make sure that people who transact in a (missing this word. mile?) have more weight. Basically you make a proportional to coin days accumulated. Someone with a small balance that doesn't transact but once a week would be like someone with one seventh of that balance transacting everyday.

Fuzzy: Makes sense. The more you use it the less priority you have.

Bytemaster: Correct. We can do certain things like penalizing people for (missed this part. Use) high loads and automatic scaling of the fees. The goal here would be to create a system that has lower costs in terms of committee oversight, allows you to advertise free [fees?] -
Nothing in life is really free, anything it's advertised as free is fundamentally rate limited - allows people to use the network and we don't have to put fees in people's faces all the time,

Someone else(Data?: By the way, what role would the committee have in a "feeless" scheme like this?

Bytemaster: Controlling block size, block intervals, maintenance intervals(?). Mechanics. Committee members would make far less frequent discussion. If you want to change market fees that might be the only fee you would discuss, but such a system would get BitShares one step closer to having the same user experience as a centralized exchange.

Someone else: Would this be mostly for transactions? For example, creating an asset is still gonna cost a fee right?

Bytemaster: True. Anything that's scarce like that... One is bandwidth which is transient and the other is real estate which is permanent, so account names and asset symbols would still have fees associated with them.

Someone else: Would the committee account still be potentially adjusting smartcoin parameters, fee collecting (missing something here)?

Bytemaster: Yes

Someone else: And what would this do to the upcoming STEALTH feature? I mean obviously this isn't gonna happen at the time STEALTh is introduced but envisioning in the future, how would that impact situations like STEALTH?

Bytemaster: So STEALTH is something where the network doesn't know the balance so a fee still has to be charged. It wouldn't eliminate all fees but it would the majority of fees that people are complaining about.

Someone else: And I guess the other question is how does it impact the registration incentives, referral programs?

Bytemaster: Right now the referral program is set up to be based on fees, a percentage of future fees. That creates incentives to sign up users. We can still have fees but we can choose where and when and how much to charge fees versus right now we have to charge fees on absolutely everything in order to prevent spam. Look at it as an alternative minimum fee to prevent spam, allowing the committee to pick and choose where you actually want to charge users and where you don't want to charge users. So there's the new proposal for percentage based transfer fees that abit's been working on. I think that charging people for transfers proportional to the value of the transfer is great.
I think for low value transfers you can get rid of the minimum cause we have an alternative way of charging people for small amounts so there would have to be no minimum fee for the percentage base transfers which would leave us only with the percentage + maximum. It gives us more options in our toolbox and can allow micro payments as long as you don't flood the network with them and things like that.

Fuzzy: Does that answer your question?

Someone else: Fee backed assets would also be affected I guess in the same way STEALTH is...

Bytemaster: Correct. So someone says, a big whale can continuously flood the network. Well there's too things here: 1, the network will (couldn't get this part, there's an interruption) fraction of the available capacity. So if we're able to do a thousand transactions per second, anything over a hundred transactions per second will start to have very high fees, Basically would consume the user's transaction power, very rapidly. So a whale who attempts to flood will quickly get rate limited without rate limiting the smaller parties who transact plus frequently? ...(missed this part) Transacting constantly has power proportional to their stake, as time approaches zero but so he transacts only once a week, well they've got seven times the transaction power when they do transact, because they didn't transact for an entire week. For a whale who attempts to save their transactions power for a year and then flood the network all at once it also rapidly depletes . There are algorithms available to prevent abuse. effectively if the network is fully loaded everyone gets to transact proportional to their stake. So someone who has 1% of the network can transact 1% of the time.

Someone else: That's basically a function of magnitude and time together.

Bytemaster: Correct. So a whale would not be able to consume every single block because non whales save up until they get priority over a whale. So it's kinda like if you use the mining analogy the low power miners periodically get a chance to produce a block and a high power miner might produce more frequently but the ratio is always proportional to the actual take.

Ends at 35:20. There's more stuff after but I got to go sleep now lol

So we're having XEM, NuShares and BlockShares on OpenLedger?
http://cryptofresh.com/u/ccedkbts

Didn't you already have those on CCEDK? Is this the very beginning of the migration? First adding all the markets you have on CCEDK to support them, have some volume and then finally migrate?

Any news on Ethereum and Emercoin markets?

Edit: I see emercoin is already in. One detail, however, all assets are OPENASSET and emercoin is OPEN.EMC, shouldn't it be OPENEMC? People might find that odd and think is someone else trying to mimic the asset. The description and issuer are still there, but would be nice if all had the same pattern. Same for other OPEN.ASSET assets. I thought the names were already taken but aren't, so, why have different names?

We know exchanges who add the trending currencies can easily grow, look at Polo with Eth and Factom, etc

So what if we were the first trading this in the cryptoscene?
http://bitcoinist.net/digital-currency-group-hints-at-going-public-in-the-future/

Could we get a feed for that? Would we have any legal issues? It would certainly attract attention. The only place where this could be traded.

Cryptos are growing, this is one of the biggest companies. I'm sure some people are bullish on this. Imagine being able to trade it. No one would be restricted, everyone could do it. Imagine being able to do the same with Coinbase and others. Stock Indexes are fine but people might find it more attractive if they think the whole cryptoscene still has plenty of room to grow. Being able to invest in one of the first successful companies around is a definitely a good opportunity

Ok one fact is if we delay this discussion about the fees for a few weeks, BitShares won't die. That's for sure.

So can we stop the discussion about fees for a second and focus on this?

Now, ignoring that for a bit  - and please don't hijack this thread with that discussion - can we focus on how the use the fee pool?

The committee collected the fees, they're waiting to be used! We have reached $50k daily volume. What chance is better to use the those funds to create bitassets and sell them 10% above the peg?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21183.0.html

Isn't liquidity a chicken and egg problem? Well we just got one of those. We have a little of liquidity, so why waste it? We need to grab this chance. Use it at the same time we use those funds to promote even more liquidity! That's what we need

I think that could help, for starters. Now, I have not applied for committee for a reason. I honestly don't know much about how markets work, only have a basic idea so maybe just selling them isn't enough. Maybe it's good short term right? I'm sure it is, but maybe we need a better long term plan.

This thread is to discuss exactly that.

Right now we have the chance to use our current volume which has spiked in these last days to bootstrap liquidity, it's exactly what we've been asking for so let's use this chance. Puppies reported a volume of $50k and Ronny another $22k that didn't show on cmc, that makes it $75k. Along with these assets we could do something. However it's better if we have a long term plan so let's discuss that

We've been blinded by the fees when this should be our focus but that's just my opinion. Let's focus on what's important. How to bring liquidity to the markets using the fee pool