Quote from: abit on May 27, 2020, 04:19:50 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on May 27, 2020, 10:48:13 am

Rather than rejecting this and that, can we start a discussion about what is acceptable? E.G. what fee percent is acceptable for you? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 30%?

10% is real. If this money is used to develop Bitshares and strengthen the brand in the market, we will support this proposal.

Important! Payments will be made in traded tokens? or the exchange will need to make an exchange for BTS? Tokens are highly volatile and providing each project with a cost is not profitable for the gateway.

As bsip 86 described, fees would be deducted from trading directly, in the trading assets. Gateways don't need to do anything special.

Very important!!! It is necessary to reduce the commission for creating an asset. Due to the high commissions, there are difficulties to add new coins. These huge commissions interfere with the work of the exchange. We wanted to add most of the popular coins to the exchange, but because of such a quick (without warning, announcement, etc.) raising commissions, our work on adding coins is limited! Raising asset creation fees makes Bitshares too expensive! White lists have now appeared, and this protects users from fraudulent assets.

I understand the difficulties, and sorry for that.

The raising of asset creation fee was brought by community members to fight scam activities.

I suppose that the fee will be lowered after 4.0 hard fork, around 2 months away from now. However, if there is high demand it can be lowered sooner.

ABOUT MM: We said that we would not take part in the next MM contest. We want to look at the example of Gdex how new competition will work. And maybe we'll take part.

甘少已经发了 10000 BTS的任务，要求押金 20%

https://bts.ai/market/ABITS.JUN20BTS30_BTS

Quote from: bitcrab on May 27, 2020, 10:48:13 am

if finally the voting decided to set the rate to 0, market fee will not be shared

We already paying blockchain fees, so this double taxation looks more like a tribute for the existing businesses this is not acceptable.

Rather than rejecting this and that, can we start a discussion about what is acceptable? E.G. what fee percent is acceptable for you? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? 30%?

It's clear that there is a conflict of interest on your side. As a gateway you want the platform to help you more so you can earn more, and it's better to pay less to the platform, on the other hand, as a BTS holder you probably want the platform to earn more from the gateways.

I am NOT running a gateway so I am mostly on the side of the platform. Yet I seek for win-win situations.

The question is just that, what CAN WE DO to both benefit the platform and the gateways? Don't tell me doing nothing is the answer. In the past there are enough times we did nothing and the situation went worse.

Here are some potential options I can see to increase income:
* the committee increases basic operation fees (zero cost, maybe higher or lower final income)
* the committee makes use of bsip86 (zero cost, maybe higher or lower final income)
* the community use some funds (committee or worker) to encourage trading, in hope of gaining more income (some costs, maybe higher or lower final income)

What do you think?

I told you and I repeat you not once that taxation is a worse idea that pops up in your head, a community that for the year couldn't imagine/invent anything smarter/better than bring/build taxation in blockchain for a few existing small businesses on top of it are going in a rekt direction

Chinese community, mark my words, with such ideas for the bitshares upgrade you will roll OUT from top-100 till the end of the year No foreigners, no businesses, no money, just some scammed/broken bitassets, empty markets and "workers" dumping the coin. The bright future for the chain, isn't it?

What's your SOLUTION then?

You know which gateways scammed the community. Not Chinese.

You know who (workers or not) dumped the hardest. Not Chinese.

Yes, Chinese pushed the de-peg of bitassets, but without the great support of Thule, your friend, it shouldn't have been done.

HIVE Community: https://peakd.com/c/hive-120117/created

There is another link: http://bitshares.social/

Note: https://bitshares.social/ doesn't load so far.

Which committee member voted for this increase ?

Who have voted are on the chain.

Actually discussions about fees have been around since long before, E.G. https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/4.

This time, the request to increase fees came from the Russian community, brought up by a legit business - RuDEX. Another legit business, GDEX, voiced support, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32136.msg342089#msg342089 .

This is temporary until UI gets updated ?

There is a core problem, which does prevent the reuse of the asset for the prediction market ?

Think openly, the issue is actually how to improve the system to support legit businesses, not only limited to legit prediction markets. We acknowledge that scammers can abuse prediction markets too, although perhaps not yet happened.

In my opinion, for OP and similar businesses, at this moment, if the community really supports them, creating worker proposals to get compensated is the way to go. Another option is to ask the committee for compensation, although I don't know whether the committee has the right to do so, for example, why compensate one business but not another?

Look at the business logic, reusing token is a bit complex. There is a lot of dust to clean after a market is closed. The participants aren't incentivized to clean the dust right now. Creating a new token is much easier. On the other hand, more "dead" tokens means more resources locked in the system, which is not what we want.

I think one solution would be to have some kind of refunding mechanism, say, refund 90% when a market is closed properly, e.g. all outstanding token settled/destroyed, to save resources for the system. Actually, if the asset owners are able to achieve this, the token is technically ready to be reused, so perhaps just reuse it -- this need a hard fork anyway, so we can actually improve more things at the same time, E.G. put it in the 5.0 release. Any way, to make things done, we start from a discussion, then work out the specifications, then implement, etc, actively participation is required.

谢谢。

抵押者在不断上杠杆抵押的情况下会有极大机会（几乎是确定的）获得比锁仓者更多的投票权，这个锁仓者岂不是相当悲催？！原价连续杠杆的情况下，基本相当于上了2.3倍杠杆，价格再上涨的话，这个倍数会指数型放大，何况抵押者大部分基本上是短期（或者被动短期）bts持有者。

合理设置 ICR 参数可以解决反复抵押滚雪球的问题，效果参考前一阵的大量强清压力下的债仓分布情况。

如果抵押票权保持不变，锁仓加的票权系数可以给更高。

抵押者在抵押bts借出bitasset之后是否把一部分票权让渡给了bitasset?

bitasset 持有者是肯定不能给票权的。不然，这些人只要把BTS价格砸更低，也不需要接盘，就能获得更多票权，多美。

另一方面，如果按抵押率来计算债仓的票权，做空者一样可以用砸盘来削弱这些票。
为了投票决策的稳定性，也就是说考虑长期利益，债仓的抵押最好是完全不计票权。
这听起来好像又不太对？毕竟，抵押者主观上还是多头，应该照顾一下，对不对？