Looks like some kind of smart contract.
1. everyone other pays the one for what? if it's paid because that the one provided some kind of service to others, others may want that money(after subtracted costs which the one already paid for providing the service) goes into an "public" account with multi-signature permissions and authorities, and release it after the cycle completed. In this case it's fair for everyone to get his/her money at the end of every cycle. However, the latter ones in the cycle will get some benefit because they will get their money sooner than the earlier ones.
2. in above practice, the cycle is maintained manually by the people involved. Maybe it is possible to make it automatically?

UIAs don't have this problem.

With UIAs, one doesn't need to care about how much the price/value of a BTS is.
But the problem is, in this way, why would the price/value of BTS increase? Even if the system is "profiting" by collecting more and more BTS's into reserved fund pool, the asset issuers have incentives to keep the price/value of BTS at a low level so that they can pay less to operate their businesses. The goal of BTS holders and the UIA issuers are not aligned.
It seems this is what Ripple is facing.

Very cool summary ..

I am a little confused as to what exactly the "." means in your tables. Is it decimal separator or thousands separator?

I think it's decimal separator

Quote from: fav on November 22, 2015, 08:49:41 pm

Quote from: rgcrypto on November 22, 2015, 08:42:03 pm

Quote from: Akado on November 22, 2015, 08:12:33 pm

Well I also think the chatbox is needed, a lot. People tell about wanting core users, well, those will hang out on the chatbox.

I second that 

Users need easy access support without leaving the client.

we can't add a 3rd party to the wallet. that's the deal here.

I think it can't get easier than to go to openledger.info and click on the chat button to get in touch

Could the function be there so that each wallet provider can have it's own support?

I think a configurable "support" or "chat" link on the main page would be ok, the wallet provider can link it to it's own page/box.

voted

Sounds interesting..

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 17, 2015, 10:22:18 pm

Quote from: donkeypong on November 17, 2015, 10:08:14 pm

Quote from: jakub on November 17, 2015, 10:01:57 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on November 17, 2015, 09:54:08 pm

Clayop whined so much about the high fee's... he finally got a chance to lower them, but only lowered them enough to fuck over referrers and the low fee guys in one swipe.

So why don't we lower the transfer fee on CNY only and leave transfer fees for other assets as they are?

I hate to say it, lil_jay, but you are correct. They have stripped everyone of the tools they need to succeed. They could have picked a side, any side, and yet they price this at dumbest possible price point where no one has what they need to properly sell this thing.

Jakub, I would support your idea, having some different fees for different currency pairs. I don't see why we need a one-size-fits-all approach. And if the business gravitates to the low fee areas, then that would be a successful experiment, telling us what we need to know.

The reason you cannot have different fees for different pairs is you destroy all the pairs that are more. In other words, why would I trade in bitUSD pair when trading in bitCNY will be cheaper? Market will respond the same way and only the lower value currencies will have any meaningful volume.

We cannot begin to get into having to geo locate accounts either.

But why are you talking about currency pairs?
This is about transfer fees, not trading fees.

What I advocate is very simple: when I transfer bitCNY I pay e.g. the equivalent of $0.10. But when I transfer bitEUR I pay the equivalent of $0.20.
Clean and simple.

It just requires the witnesses to configure asset fee pools differently for bitCNY and differently for bitUSD and bitEUR.
The only "problem" is that transfers on bitUSD and bitEUR will "subsidize" transfers on bitCNY, but I think this is the least bad solution.
The alternative is to have a bad compromise which makes both sides unhappy.

It makes sense to lower the cny transfer fee since we have a functional cny bridge but no(?) such service in other currencies. If the committee decided, witnesses could set core_exchange_rate of cny to a higher value so that cny transfers will get a discount if fees are paid in cny. But I'm not sure whether the market fees will be affected by doing so.

how do you pull the different wallet balances? What kind of script or cli wallet call are you using for that? I think that would be very helpful to keep track of your own UIA.

Let´s say i want to pay dividends or drop shares i need to know who holds my UIA. Any tips here?

One way is to walk through the 1.2.X objects in a script with command "list_account_balances".
list_account_balances 1.2.309
May need to make sure that no fund moving while running the script.