Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - abit

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 260
76
General Discussion / Re: Repost: Market making contest, stage one
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:20:03 pm »

Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2019, 09:26:13 am »
Quote from: George_Bitspark on October 15, 2019, 02:33:14 am
USDT from existing gateways on the DEX has no volume or market depth, not sure why this would be a focus rather than ETH. Depth on OPEN.USDT is 40 USDT on ask and 11085 BTS on the Bid. Depth on GDEX.USDT is 35 USDT on the ask and 6100 BTS on the Bid.

If the reason is "USDT is supported on many exchanges and we want to promote BTS trading against USDT which is the biggest stablecoin" then maybe there is merit in that but still, its not where the market is at currently. Probably USDT would be traded more actively if it were an included asset in this proposal however.
The goal is to make the market, and attract traders to the DEX, so we don't only put efforts on the markets where there is already SOME liquidity in the DEX. The real reason for me is that BTS/ETH pairs on CEX's have too little liquidity right now. I do agree that ETH is a better asset for trading since it requires less trust on one 3rd party. I think we can add ETH to the contest or a new contest at an appropriate time.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2019, 09:38:37 am »
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 10:45:53 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.
I got where the issue is.

BTS whales like alt can easily put huge sell walls on the market that nobody has that much money to buy and ruin the contest even the market, worse they would even get rewarded by doing so, that's something we don't want to see. This is not just an imagination but has happened in the past, in the beginning of this downtrend, alt has left a huge margin call wall on the BTS/bitUSD market which effectively helped the downtrend.

On the other hand, sell-side liquidity does have some value as it makes it easier for strong hands to buy in big trunks.

I think one solution is to make the sell-side reward as small as possible, currently the ratio is 1:4, so perhaps we need to change it to 1:9 or even 1:99.

Another solution is to do the sell-side reward only when "we are ready", that said, reward buy-side liquidity from the beginning, but only start rewarding sell-side liquidity after we have gain some buy-side liquidity, even postpone it forever.

Thoughts?
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline chigbolu
Newbie
*
Posts: 19
View Profile
BitShares: vnc-7

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2019, 12:52:26 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 15, 2019, 09:26:13 am
Quote from: George_Bitspark on October 15, 2019, 02:33:14 am
USDT from existing gateways on the DEX has no volume or market depth, not sure why this would be a focus rather than ETH. Depth on OPEN.USDT is 40 USDT on ask and 11085 BTS on the Bid. Depth on GDEX.USDT is 35 USDT on the ask and 6100 BTS on the Bid.

If the reason is "USDT is supported on many exchanges and we want to promote BTS trading against USDT which is the biggest stablecoin" then maybe there is merit in that but still, its not where the market is at currently. Probably USDT would be traded more actively if it were an included asset in this proposal however.
The goal is to make the market, and attract traders to the DEX, so we don't only put efforts on the markets where there is already SOME liquidity in the DEX. The real reason for me is that BTS/ETH pairs on CEX's have too little liquidity right now. I do agree that ETH is a better asset for trading since it requires less trust on one 3rd party. I think we can add ETH to the contest or a new contest at an appropriate time.
ETH pairs should be there why USDT it should be ETH however this just my opinion... The contest is good for the Dex
 Logged
Offline Crypto Kong
Full Member
***
Posts: 98
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2019, 03:39:46 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 15, 2019, 09:38:37 am
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 10:45:53 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.
I got where the issue is.

BTS whales like alt can easily put huge sell walls on the market that nobody has that much money to buy and ruin the contest even the market, worse they would even get rewarded by doing so, that's something we don't want to see. This is not just an imagination but has happened in the past, in the beginning of this downtrend, alt has left a huge margin call wall on the BTS/bitUSD market which effectively helped the downtrend.

On the other hand, sell-side liquidity does have some value as it makes it easier for strong hands to buy in big trunks.

I think one solution is to make the sell-side reward as small as possible, currently the ratio is 1:4, so perhaps we need to change it to 1:9 or even 1:99.

Another solution is to do the sell-side reward only when "we are ready", that said, reward buy-side liquidity from the beginning, but only start rewarding sell-side liquidity after we have gain some buy-side liquidity, even postpone it forever.

Thoughts?

I would be in favour of only rewarding buy orders that support BTS price, we should not create a situation where we are rewarding BTS holders for putting their BTS up for sale. Those who want to earn the most from this will place buy orders in the 1% bracket, some of those orders will get filled and they will instantly put BTS back up for sale at a price close to what they just paid so they can earn the reward again, this back and forth will create sell side liquidity. There is no need to reward sell orders.
 Logged
Offline tbone
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 636
View Profile
BitShares: tbone2

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2019, 06:58:45 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 15, 2019, 09:38:37 am
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 10:45:53 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.
I got where the issue is.

BTS whales like alt can easily put huge sell walls on the market that nobody has that much money to buy and ruin the contest even the market, worse they would even get rewarded by doing so, that's something we don't want to see. This is not just an imagination but has happened in the past, in the beginning of this downtrend, alt has left a huge margin call wall on the BTS/bitUSD market which effectively helped the downtrend.

On the other hand, sell-side liquidity does have some value as it makes it easier for strong hands to buy in big trunks.

I think one solution is to make the sell-side reward as small as possible, currently the ratio is 1:4, so perhaps we need to change it to 1:9 or even 1:99.

Another solution is to do the sell-side reward only when "we are ready", that said, reward buy-side liquidity from the beginning, but only start rewarding sell-side liquidity after we have gain some buy-side liquidity, even postpone it forever.

Thoughts?

Yes, I think you're right that this should be skewed MUCH further toward rewarding buy-side liquidity, and not so much sell-side. I like the idea of going with 99:1. This way it's coded to reward both sides (ofc starting with very skewed ratio), and later the rewards can easily be shifted IF/when necessary by simply adjusting a ratio parameter. Also, in terms of public perception, it doesn't sound right to only pay for buyers, so I think it's better to at least have symbolic rewards on sell-side.

By the way, I think it's best not to call this a "contest". That sounds too retail and short-lived (although do I think retail trader contests should also be conducted as a complementary effort). But I believe the type of market maker incentive/reward program we are discussing here should be viewed as something much more serious than periodic retail trader contests, and we should also probably expect something like this to be more ongoing, AT LEAST until markets become more mature.

For those that are not sold on the idea of this effort, they must understand a) this is an exchange, b) without liquidity, retail traders will NOT use this exchange (and in that case we might as well just give up), c) liquidity does not spontaneously appear and must be incentivized. These are the realities.

 Logged
Offline tbone
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 636
View Profile
BitShares: tbone2

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2019, 07:12:57 pm »
By the way @abit, I'm not sure how you planned to implement the ratio to begin with i.e. did you plan to use the ratio as a multiplying factor (e.g. 0.01x for sell side and 0.99x for buy side) in calculating % share of a single reward pool? Or did you plan to simply have 2 separate reward pools, one for buy side and one for sell side (sized according to the ratio)?  It occurred to me that the latter would probably be more preferable, that way there's no chance of sell-side orders earning much more than expected.
 Logged
Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2019, 07:55:57 pm »
Quote from: tbone on October 15, 2019, 07:12:57 pm
By the way @abit, I'm not sure how you planned to implement the ratio to begin with i.e. did you plan to use the ratio as a multiplying factor (e.g. 0.01x for sell side and 0.99x for buy side) in calculating % share of a single reward pool? Or did you plan to simply have 2 separate reward pools, one for buy side and one for sell side (sized according to the ratio)?  It occurred to me that the latter would probably be more preferable, that way there's no chance of sell-side orders earning much more than expected.
Yes, separate reward pools.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline Permie22
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 22
View Profile
BitShares: Permie

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2019, 08:55:14 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 15, 2019, 09:38:37 am
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 10:45:53 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.
I got where the issue is.

BTS whales like alt can easily put huge sell walls on the market that nobody has that much money to buy and ruin the contest even the market, worse they would even get rewarded by doing so, that's something we don't want to see. This is not just an imagination but has happened in the past, in the beginning of this downtrend, alt has left a huge margin call wall on the BTS/bitUSD market which effectively helped the downtrend.

On the other hand, sell-side liquidity does have some value as it makes it easier for strong hands to buy in big trunks.

I think one solution is to make the sell-side reward as small as possible, currently the ratio is 1:4, so perhaps we need to change it to 1:9 or even 1:99.

Another solution is to do the sell-side reward only when "we are ready", that said, reward buy-side liquidity from the beginning, but only start rewarding sell-side liquidity after we have gain some buy-side liquidity, even postpone it forever.

Thoughts?

This Market Making contest/reward is a great plan. Thanks abit.

DEXBot's CEX-DEX feature for cli (hopefilly GUI in time too) will have a beta release this month, being able to mirror (copy and paste) CEX orderbooks onto the DEX. This will be basic, and allow user testing and unit testing before more advanced refinement to enable full arbitrage afterwards.

This mirroring CEX orderbooks will add liquidity to the DEX for BTS/BTC and will help participants in this competition keep their orders with a low spread to target the maximum reward.


The CEX orderbook will be normalised so that DEXBot users with any amount of funds will be able to mirror the CEX orderbook depth onto the DEX. Adding a % offset so that orders placed on the DEX at a % higher/lower price than the CEX will come soon after the first beta release. So that when DEX limit-orders are taken DEXBot will be able to close the trade with a CEX market-order by taking an offer from the CEX for a % gain. In effect moving liquidity from the CEX onto the DEX.
Standard arbitrage that takes on the DEX and on the CEX will come afterwards.

CEX orderbook mirroring to add liquidity in the beta release this month.
%-offset for mirrored arbitrage soon after.
Standard arbitrage soon after that.

CEX orderbook mirroring is coming first because it's adds the most liquidity quickly, and because the code required to do so is important to for the more advanced parameters. Testing of this code needs to be done first else there will be problems in future.
 Logged
Offline George_Bitspark
Full Member
***
Posts: 67
Co-Founder and CEO of Bitspark
View Profile Bitspark

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2019, 01:57:13 am »
The weighting towards buyside is interesting, yes that should probably be something higher than 1:4, perhaps 1:10.
 Logged
Bitspark- Cash to Cryptocurrency
Offline matle85
Full Member
***
Posts: 134
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2019, 08:49:23 am »
Good initiative - I agree the ratio should be very heavily skewed in favour of the buyers.. Kong's suggestion that sellers arent rewarded isnt a bad one, I don't think that would discourage market makers but it would (hopefully?) discourage massive/obstructive sell walls.
 Logged
Offline blockchained
Full Member
***

Posts: 166
View Profile RuDEX
BitShares: blckchnd
GitHub: blckchnd

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2019, 02:43:42 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 08:10:02 pm
Quote from: blockchained on October 14, 2019, 08:07:05 pm
Good initiative, count us in!
Please list your assets, and provide proofs that all your assets are fully backed.

https://audit.rudex.org
 Logged
Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2019, 10:29:25 am »
Quote from: blockchained on October 19, 2019, 02:43:42 pm
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 08:10:02 pm
Quote from: blockchained on October 14, 2019, 08:07:05 pm
Good initiative, count us in!
Please list your assets, and provide proofs that all your assets are fully backed.

https://audit.rudex.org
Thanks a lot. Updated RUDEX.BTC to OP. Didn't see USDT in your list.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline bench
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 268
View Profile bitshares-vision
GitHub: froooze

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2019, 11:30:29 am »
Quote from: blockchained on October 19, 2019, 02:43:42 pm
https://audit.rudex.org

How can I withdraw and deposit BTC and ETH on rudex? The UI has no entries here?
 Logged
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2019, 11:39:11 pm »
Quote from: George_Bitspark on October 14, 2019, 07:32:56 am
Where would the snapshots be hosted so everyone can see openly the calcs?
Just got some data.

At block number 42002257, there are 4020 open orders in 9 markets: BTS/[OPEN, BRIDGE, RUDEX, GDEX, SPARKDEX, XBTSX].[BTC, USDT].

A snapshot file containing all orders in those markets at that block in JSON format is 1,116,597 bytes, around 1Mbyte.

This means we'll need around 30GB of disk space for the snapshots every day.

I can provide the program to generate the snapshots. Who would like to host the data?

To save disk space, perhaps better remove some unneeded data from the snapshot. Still tweaking the code.

UPDATE:
compacted snapshot files are around 60K each, which means around 2GB per day. Could be even smaller after compressed.

UPDATE:
Final size is about 10% after compressed.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 04:10:54 pm by abit »
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Online abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3888
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2019, 01:44:30 am »
Sample reward statistics for 2019-10-20 (last 2794 blocks):
Reward ratio for sellers:buyers = 1:99

BTS/BTC pair, BTS sellers
group 1(depth 0%-1%), total reward 1.42619 BTS
group 2(depth 1%-2%), total reward 9.02762 BTS
group 3(depth 2%-3%), total reward 0.69030 BTS
group 4(depth 3%-5%), total reward 0.61074 BTS
group 5(depth 5%-7%), total reward 0.10692 BTS
group 6(depth 7%-10%), total reward 0.40895 BTS

BTS/BTC pair, BTS buyers
group 1(depth 0%-1%), total reward 30.93281 BTS
group 2(depth 1%-2%), total reward 134.15809 BTS
group 3(depth 2%-3%), total reward 162.62307 BTS
group 4(depth 3%-5%), total reward 271.09139 BTS
group 5(depth 5%-7%), total reward 86.63264 BTS
group 6(depth 7%-10%), total reward 114.14085 BTS

No reward for BTS/USDT pairs due to too poor liquidity.

Data source (snapshots): https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-core/releases/download/2.0.170531-win/1020.tgz

Code: https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-core/tree/ugly-3.0

Quote
{:BTC=>{:sells=>{1=>{:score=>(66341889478591/5000000000000), :reward=>142619}, 2=>{:score=>(33594790312037/400000000000), :reward=>902762}, 3=>{:score=>(8027693808477/1250000000000), :reward=>69030}, 4=>{:score=>(28409653240827/5000000000000), :reward=>61074}, 5=>{:score=>(9947639320371/10000000000000), :reward=>10692}, 6=>{:score=>(38046111205481/10000000000000), :reward=>40895}}, :buys=>{1=>{:score=>(2906851748571/1000000000000), :reward=>3093281}, 2=>{:score=>(2521449468611/200000000000), :reward=>13415809}, 3=>{:score=>(38205472718589/2500000000000), :reward=>16262307}, 4=>{:score=>(318441112347/12500000000), :reward=>27109139}, 5=>{:score=>(40705676444139/5000000000000), :reward=>8663264}, 6=>{:score=>(13407707343421/1250000000000), :reward=>11414085}}}, :USDT=>{:sells=>{}, :buys=>{}}}
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 03:31:54 am by abit »
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
PRINT
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up

77
General Discussion / Re: Repost: Market making contest, stage one
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:19:09 pm »
Online Thul3
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 360
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2019, 09:30:51 am »
Quote
So no, IMHO committee should NOT need to ask further approval before taking action

Agree on that,but maybe a one time voting would be needed to clarify if community agrees.

Quote
I don't think BTC and USDT markets are so important or attractive. In my opinion, EOS and ETH are a much better choice as a way of entering DEX. I propose adding these 2 markets, I am aware that this will lower the prize for participants.

BTC and USDT are the 2 main coins being used on CEX'es and are also the main pairs against which BTS trades on CEX'es .
There is also an agenda behind these two coins because a liquid market on DEX with these two coins will open direct arbitrage possabilities with CEX'es for BTS which will make it longterm more difficult to manipulate BTS price on CEX as more liquid these market gets on DEX.
Also having a liquid market on DEX means that our internal positive BTS price (very often higher than on CEX) can also push price on CEX via arbitrage.


Quote
If there is more liquidity on DEX for that it makes arbitrage from CEX/DEX more viable- would be a good time for DEXbot to showcase DEX/CEX arb but thats been coming for months not sure on update on that yet.
Yes that was the main idea.
Dexbot CEX/DEX arbitrage beta comes out end of this month.

I personly would like to buy ad space on bitcointalk for 4 of 10 banner slots to promote 1/4 Dexbot to get new users for it as there is high demand on bitcointalk for tradingbots who would bring hopefully their major assets to DEX, 1/4 to promote the refferal program of bitshares to spread the word about the high reward we are giving on bitshares and 2/4 to promote DEX directly.

Cost would be very low and the reach would be big as each banner slot gets on average arround 3.3 million times displayed on bitcointalk.



The contest rules looks very good to me

« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 09:41:31 am by Thul3 »
 Logged
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3869
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2019, 01:11:52 pm »
Someone reminded me that before launching the contest on the mainnet, we can simulate a contest first on the testnet. I will update when have more info.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline bitcrab
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 1645
View Profile
BitShares: bitcrab
GitHub: bitcrab

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2019, 03:13:25 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 10:33:42 pm
Quote from: bench on October 13, 2019, 10:31:45 pm
Quote from: abit

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.
Why do we need any committee funds here? Which committee member supports this?

Committee funds should be used to increase reserve pool or worker funding and not for fun.
You prefer funding it via worker?

I prefer that this contest be funded by a worker, rather than the funds in committee-account, I'd like to try my best to lobby big proxies to support the worker.
 Logged
Email:[email protected]
Offline BTSMoon
Full Member
***
Posts: 82
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2019, 04:09:42 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on October 14, 2019, 03:13:25 pm
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 10:33:42 pm
Quote from: bench on October 13, 2019, 10:31:45 pm
Quote from: abit

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.
Why do we need any committee funds here? Which committee member supports this?

Committee funds should be used to increase reserve pool or worker funding and not for fun.
You prefer funding it via worker?

I prefer that this contest be funded by a worker, rather than the funds in committee-account, I'd like to try my best to lobby big proxies to support the worker.

申请资金池?对外公布比赛后然后半途没钱了,这就是营销?这就是推广?这是让人看笑话吧
 Logged
Offline Crypto Kong
Full Member
***
Posts: 94
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2019, 07:26:00 pm »
Great initiative abit.

I think if we are going to be paying to help increase gateway trade revenues we should expect them to meet a few requirements and minimum standards. Bitsparks audit page is a good start and I think we should expect the same from any gateway wishing to be involved in this so that we can see the assets we are holding are actually backed by something. Also perhaps a reduction in withdrawel fees that would help to encourage arbitrage traders. I understand that lowering fees for those not actually involved in this doesnt make sense so perhaps users might have to register with gateways to receive the reduction in fees, paid back later perhaps?
 Logged
Offline blockchained
Full Member
***

Posts: 166
View Profile RuDEX
BitShares: blckchnd
GitHub: blckchnd

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2019, 08:07:05 pm »
Good initiative, count us in!
 Logged
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3869
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2019, 08:10:02 pm »
Quote from: blockchained on October 14, 2019, 08:07:05 pm
Good initiative, count us in!
Please list your assets, and provide proofs that all your assets are fully backed.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline blockchained
Full Member
***

Posts: 166
View Profile RuDEX
BitShares: blckchnd
GitHub: blckchnd

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2019, 08:17:49 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 14, 2019, 08:10:02 pm
Quote from: blockchained on October 14, 2019, 08:07:05 pm
Good initiative, count us in!
Please list your assets, and provide proofs that all your assets are fully backed.
we already working on that page
 Logged
Offline tbone
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 636
View Profile
BitShares: tbone2

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm
The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC

### not yet qualified gateway assets:
GDEX.BTC
GDEX.USDT
blockchained.X

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

For each market, 80% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and 20% of total reward will go to BTS sellers.

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 24,000 BTS * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 6,000 BTS * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward


## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet (https://testnet.bitshares.eu/) will be launched soon. Details will follow.

Looks good. It makes a lot of sense to reward orders on the books (as close as possible to the action) as opposed to simply rewarding trading volume (which doesn't necessarily provide any value, i.e. it can be gamed). Also, I like that you propose to weight the rewards 4:1 toward the bid side instead of 1:1, especially since we are still not in a bull market.

The only criticism I have right now is that the distance factor can possibly be somewhat gamed.

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 09:00:20 pm by tbone »
 Logged
Online EuropaSH
Full Member
***

Posts: 149
IT innovations
View Profile https://xbts.io
BitShares: euro888

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2019, 08:54:53 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm
The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.


Thanks for this work Abit. We at XBTS would be happy to join in this contest. We will inform our community about the competition. We will do a promo for coin communities that are added to the XBTS.
We will prepare the required data.
 Logged
XBTS DEX EXCHANGE FOR TRADERS AND GAMERS https://xbts.io
Online Thul3
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 360
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm »
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm
The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC

### not yet qualified gateway assets:
GDEX.BTC
GDEX.USDT
blockchained.X

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

For each market, 80% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and 20% of total reward will go to BTS sellers.

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 24,000 BTS * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 6,000 BTS * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward


## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet (https://testnet.bitshares.eu/) will be launched soon. Details will follow.

Looks good. It makes a lot of sense to reward orders on the books (as close as possible to the action) as opposed to simply rewarding trading volume (which doesn't necessarily provide any value, i.e. it can be gamed). Also, I like that you propose to weight the rewards 4:1 toward the bid side instead of 1:1, especially since we are still not in a bull market.

The only criticism I have right now is that the distance factor can possibly be somewhat gamed.

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.
 Logged
Offline tbone
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 636
View Profile
BitShares: tbone2

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm »
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm
The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC

### not yet qualified gateway assets:
GDEX.BTC
GDEX.USDT
blockchained.X

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

For each market, 80% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and 20% of total reward will go to BTS sellers.

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 24,000 BTS * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 6,000 BTS * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward


## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet (https://testnet.bitshares.eu/) will be launched soon. Details will follow.

Looks good. It makes a lot of sense to reward orders on the books (as close as possible to the action) as opposed to simply rewarding trading volume (which doesn't necessarily provide any value, i.e. it can be gamed). Also, I like that you propose to weight the rewards 4:1 toward the bid side instead of 1:1, especially since we are still not in a bull market.

The only criticism I have right now is that the distance factor can possibly be somewhat gamed.

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
 Logged
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3869
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2019, 10:19:11 pm »
UPDATE(2019-10-25): I'm no longer supporting the testnet simulation (reward distribution and etc) due to the lack of community participation and the launching of the mainnet contest.

## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet is available now.

* visit https://develop.bitshares.org/ , select a testnet API node, or
* visit https://testnet.bitshares.eu/ which has an old GUI and somewhat unstable API nodes.

Three market pairs:

TEST/CONTEST.BTC
TEST/CONTEST.USD1
TEST/CONTEST.USD2

Participants will be rewarded with CONTEST.REWARD token (after I got the code ready).

A few CONTEST.* tokens have been placed on the markets for sale.
Please help each other to obtain sufficient tokens for testing, and help bootstrap the markets.
If need more tokens, please leave a message in this thread.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2019, 03:49:27 pm by abit »
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3869
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2019, 10:45:53 pm »
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 10:17:43 pm
Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm
Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.
As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline George_Bitspark
Full Member
***
Posts: 67
Co-Founder and CEO of Bitspark
View Profile Bitspark

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2019, 02:33:14 am »
USDT from existing gateways on the DEX has no volume or market depth, not sure why this would be a focus rather than ETH. Depth on OPEN.USDT is 40 USDT on ask and 11085 BTS on the Bid. Depth on GDEX.USDT is 35 USDT on the ask and 6100 BTS on the Bid.

Meanwhile:

BTS/ETH markets right now:

Sparkdex.ETH
118000 BTS on bid 2.78 ETH on the ask.
GDEX.ETH
13601 BTS on bid 0.029 eth on Ask
OPEN.ETH
150000 BTS on bid 25.27 ETH on Ask
RUDEX.ETH
41654 BTS on Bid 0.7 ETH on Ask.

However all of this is meaningless without an audit page. I think gateways implementing Audit pages for reserves is a great leap forward and something needed in this space and if this is the inspiration thats good for end users. Regardless it seems ETH is more liquid even just with the sparkdex market than all of the USDT markets combined by a factor of 10x+.   

If the reason is "USDT is supported on many exchanges and we want to promote BTS trading against USDT which is the biggest stablecoin" then maybe there is merit in that but still, its not where the market is at currently. Probably USDT would be traded more actively if it were an included asset in this proposal however.
 Logged
Bitspark- Cash to Cryptocurrency
PRINT
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Up

78
General Discussion / Re: Repost: Market making contest, stage one
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:17:21 pm »
Revived from google cache.

Page one.

Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3889
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2019, 09:44:20 pm »
Chinese version:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29665.0
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 10:23:22 pm by abit »
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline pc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1522
View Profile Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
BitShares: cyrano

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2019, 10:21:21 pm »
IIRC the "liquidity reward" that existed in the early days of STEEM was scrapped because the system was essentially gamed by a certain user, without providing any real benefit. How do you intend to prevent this here?

Quote
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

Also, since when does the committee decide on funds with such volume without asking for shareholder approval first?

There are currently several important workers not voted in who are asking for less than 60k/day *in total*:

#11    201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure 4,360 BTS
#12    201904-hackthedex 1,707 BTS
#13    201907-steemfest 3,756 BTS
#15    201902-bitshares-ui 45,157 BTS
#16    201902-infrastructure 5,880 BTS
 Logged
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3889
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2019, 10:28:39 pm »
Quote from: pc on October 13, 2019, 10:21:21 pm
IIRC the "liquidity reward" that existed in the early days of STEEM was scrapped because the system was essentially gamed by a certain user, without providing any real benefit. How do you intend to prevent this here?
I was the main person who tried and gamed the STEEM liquidity reward. I know where the problems were, so in this proposal I try to avoid the problems.

To be fair, the STEEM liquidity reward did provide benefit, the liquidity was amazing during that period. But the costs were too high IMHO.

Quote
Quote
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

Also, since when does the committee decide on funds with such volume without asking for shareholder approval first?

There are currently several important workers not voted in who are asking for less than 60k/day *in total*:

#11    201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure 4,360 BTS
#12    201904-hackthedex 1,707 BTS
#13    201907-steemfest 3,756 BTS
#15    201902-bitshares-ui 45,157 BTS
#16    201902-infrastructure 5,880 BTS
This proposal is created by me personally (but not the committee), for discussion. It still needs approvals from the community.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 10:31:30 pm by abit »
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline bench
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 270
View Profile bitshares-vision
GitHub: froooze

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2019, 10:31:45 pm »
Quote from: abit

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.
Why do we need any committee funds here? Which committee member supports this?

Committee funds should be used to increase reserve pool or worker funding and not for fun.
 Logged
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3889
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2019, 10:33:42 pm »
Quote from: bench on October 13, 2019, 10:31:45 pm
Quote from: abit

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.
Why do we need any committee funds here? Which committee member supports this?

Committee funds should be used to increase reserve pool or worker funding and not for fun.
You prefer funding it via worker?
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline bench
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 270
View Profile bitshares-vision
GitHub: froooze

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2019, 11:42:21 pm »
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 10:33:42 pm
You prefer funding it via worker?
The funding looks very high and price pool should not be the main motivation to take part in the contest.
 Logged
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!
Offline sschiessl
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 582
View Profile
BitShares: sschiessl

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2019, 06:34:11 am »
Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm
## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

Agreed, gateways should voice their support and willingness to be used as one of the turning points for this contest. Since it's basically free advertisement, they might consider reducing or reimbursing market fees?

What do you think with having a flexible bounty per day, that the committee adjusts? I could imagine that would lead to a better distribution, starting low and increasing it, more people will take notice after it has started and might jump in.
 Logged
Online clockwork
Committee member
Sr. Member
*
Posts: 370
View Profile
BitShares: clockwork

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2019, 07:01:41 am »
As I'm not really a trader, I can't really comment on the specifics of the contest and whether it can be gamed or not. Nor whether it can have the desired effect.

 I hope others, more knowledgeable will add their input (@Alt? @thule)

I do however want to say that we've been debating what to do with committee funds for ages. Burning it back to reserve is the obvious one but I've always believed they can be put to better use.

Using them to fund workers is out of the question as there will be too many conflicts of interests and sets a bad precedent imho.

I'd rather see it go to off-chain activities (press releases, marketing, pre-sales activities etc.) but if people believe this will have a positive effect on DEX usage and liquidity then it's fine to me.

Furthermore, I've always maintained the position that the committee should be more proactive and should NOT have to request stakeholder approval for fund usage.

Essentially stakeholders have already given a vote of confidence to the committee members by voting them in (and can always unvote them immediately if they see them really overstepping that mandate prior to proposal expiry). So no, IMHO committee should NOT need to ask further approval before taking action. And I say this regardless of current voting weight situation (which everyone knows I'm not thrilled with)

 Logged
Offline abit
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 3889
View Profile Steemit Blog
BitShares: abit
GitHub: abitmore

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2019, 07:19:05 am »
Quote from: clockwork on October 14, 2019, 07:01:41 am
As I'm not really a trader, I can't really comment on the specifics of the contest and whether it can be gamed or not. Nor whether it can have the desired effect.


Whether it can have the desired effect is what I care the most right now.

Quote from: sschiessl on October 14, 2019, 06:34:11 am
What do you think with having a flexible bounty per day, that the committee adjusts? I could imagine that would lead to a better distribution, starting low and increasing it, more people will take notice after it has started and might jump in.

The flexible bounty is already in the rules. The committee would be able to adjust rules as the contest progressing.

Quote from: bench on October 13, 2019, 11:42:21 pm
The funding looks very high and price pool should not be the main motivation to take part in the contest.

It **looks** very high, yes. It's the part that attracts eye balls.
If you understand the rules you should realize that great efforts would be needed to get the rewards, and, the efforts would improve liquidity a lot, which would justify the reward IMHO.
 Logged
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit
Offline George_Bitspark
Full Member
***
Posts: 67
Co-Founder and CEO of Bitspark
View Profile Bitspark

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2019, 07:32:56 am »
Thanks for taking the initiative on this Abit. How long would this go on for, didnt see it mentioned in the post? The formula here seems fine as it appears to reward just posting of collateral on the DEX for liquidity rather than something like volume which can be easily gamed. Where would the snapshots be hosted so everyone can see openly the calcs? We at Bitspark (dex.bitspark.io) would be happy to join in this initiative with the sparkdex.BTC / BTS market and any other markets the community may see value in. We can perhaps have some promotional low/no fee period for the duration of this too and assist with marketing this through our channels.
 Logged
Bitspark- Cash to Cryptocurrency
Offline xeroc
Board Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 12897
ChainSquad GmbH
View Profile ChainSquad GmbH
BitShares: xeroc
GitHub: xeroc

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2019, 07:58:45 am »
Cool idea.
Given that abit made good expertiese with Bytemaster's liquidity proopsal on STEEM (which was canceled later on), i suppose he can figure out a way that this is not exploitable.

Looking forward to see how this works out.

My only concern is that it subsidizes 3rd party gateway with their market fees - but I suppose we should live with that.
 Logged
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH
Offline FractalNode
Full Member
***
Posts: 84
View Profile

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2019, 08:02:25 am »
I don't think BTC and USDT markets are so important or attractive. In my opinion, EOS and ETH are a much better choice as a way of entering DEX. I propose adding these 2 markets, I am aware that this will lower the prize for participants.
 Logged
Offline George_Bitspark
Full Member
***
Posts: 67
Co-Founder and CEO of Bitspark
View Profile Bitspark

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2019, 08:13:24 am »
BTC is the largest traded currency across all CEX's and DEX's for BTS and the highest liquidity so this should absolutely be one of the markets. If there is more liquidity on DEX for that it makes arbitrage from CEX/DEX more viable- would be a good time for DEXbot to showcase DEX/CEX arb but thats been coming for months not sure on update on that yet. If there are other currencies too that'd depend on community, right now USDT is not a star performer in liquidity or volume on DEX, ETH seems to do better.
 Logged
Bitspark- Cash to Cryptocurrency
Offline bitcrab
Committee member
Hero Member
*

Posts: 1650
View Profile
BitShares: bitcrab
GitHub: bitcrab

Re: Planning a market making contest
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2019, 08:23:38 am »
GDEX greatly support this contest.
we will provide the asset proves of GDEX.BTC and GDEX.USDT in recent future.
 Logged
Email:[email protected]
PRINT
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up

79
原英文贴被误删,没找到备份,不能原样恢复。
新开一贴 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31515.0

80
massive buying orders in dex and massive sell orders in cex. Who really profits from those market making contests? istn always gdex the winner or i am wrong
SPARKDEX and RUDEX are also in the contest.

81
General Discussion / Repost: Market making contest, stage one
« on: November 14, 2019, 01:12:55 pm »
The original post was accidentally deleted. This is a repost after slightly modified.
---------------
UPDATE (2019-12-05): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31821.0
Starting from Friday 6th December, RUDEX.USDT and XBTSX.BTC will be added to the contest.
---------------
UPDATE (2019-11-27): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31768.0
Starting from Saturday 30th November, the buyer:seller reward ratio will be changed from 90:10 to 70:30.
---------------
UPDATE (2019-11-15): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31615.0
Starting from Sunday 17th November, buyer:seller reward ratio will be adjusted from 98:2 to 90:10.
---------------
The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Start Date
2019-10-25 0:00:00 UTC
End date not yet decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets.

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s) and corresponding audit page(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC https://audit.bitspark.io/
RUDEX.BTC https://audit.rudex.org/
GDEX.BTC https://www.gdex.io/noticeAssets
XBTSX.BTC https://xbts.io/audit (Added on 2019-12-06)
GDEX.USDT https://www.gdex.io/noticeAssets
RUDEX.USDT https://audit.rudex.org/ (Added on 2019-12-06)

### gateway assets that are replied in this thread buy not yet qualified:
(currently none)

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

Initially, for each market, 98% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and the rest will go to BTS sellers.
UPDATE (2019-11-15): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31615.0
Starting from Sunday 17th November, buyer:seller reward ratio will be adjusted from 98:2 to 90:10.
UPDATE (2019-11-27): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31768.0
Starting from Saturday 30th November, the buyer:seller reward ratio will be changed from 90:10 to 70:30.
(Note: The committee will have the right to update the percentages as the contest progresses. Updates will be announced in advance.)

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 30,000 BTS * bids_reward_percent * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 30,000 BTS * asks_reward_percent * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward

## Reward Data

Will be posted in this thread.

Can also check blockchain explorers or web wallets:
https://bts.ai/details/account/committee-trade
https://cryptofresh.com/u/committee-trade
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/account/committee-trade

### How to verify the reward data

1. run a patched (https://github.com/abitmore/bitshares-core/tree/ugly-3.0 ) delayed node (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/wiki/Delayed-Node) to generate snapshots (update "config.ini" as follows)
Code: [Select]
# Ugly snapshot start block number
ugly-snapshot-start-block = 42000000

# Ugly snapshot markets
# Since 2019-12-04
ugly-snapshot-markets = [ ["1.3.0","1.3.861"], ["1.3.0","1.3.2241"], ["1.3.0","1.3.3926"], ["1.3.0","1.3.4157"], ["1.3.0","1.3.4198"], ["1.3.0","1.3.1042"], ["1.3.0","1.3.5286"], ["1.3.0","1.3.5542"] ]

# 2019-10-25 ~ 2019-12-03
#ugly-snapshot-markets = [ ["1.3.0","1.3.861"], ["1.3.0","1.3.1570"], ["1.3.0","1.3.2241"], ["1.3.0","1.3.3926"], ["1.3.0","1.3.4157"], ["1.3.0","1.3.4198"], ["1.3.0","1.3.1042"], ["1.3.0","1.3.5144"], ["1.3.0","1.3.5286"] ]

#  "id": "1.3.861", "symbol": "OPEN.BTC",
#  "id": "1.3.1570", "symbol": "BRIDGE.BTC",
#  "id": "1.3.2241", "symbol": "GDEX.BTC",
#  "id": "1.3.3926", "symbol": "RUDEX.BTC",
#  "id": "1.3.4157", "symbol": "XBTSX.BTC",
#  "id": "1.3.4198", "symbol": "SPARKDEX.BTC",
#
#  "id": "1.3.1042", "symbol": "OPEN.USDT",
#  "id": "1.3.5144", "symbol": "BRIDGE.USDT",
#  "id": "1.3.5286", "symbol": "GDEX.USDT",
#  "id": "1.3.5542", "symbol": "RUDEX.USDT",

p2p-endpoint = 127.0.0.1:0
seed-nodes = []
trusted-node = 127.0.0.1:8090

#...
plugins = delayed_node

2. Run the Ruby script (https://github.com/abitmore/bts-mmcontest-scripts) to calculate rewards from the snapshot files

## Links
BitShares News: https://news.bitshares.org/bitshares-trading-contest/
Steemit: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@abit/the-bitshares-dex-market-making-contest-will-live-soon
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BitSharesOrg/status/1187654212630351872
Telegram: https://t.me/BTSMarketMakers
Wechat: please add GDEXxiaozhushou and send message "BTS" to join the group
Chinese post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29665.0
Chinese post: https://dpos.club/t/topic/14

82
Actually I would stay on the BTC and USDT route as it already has many participants and proved somewhat successful. But to increase not only liquidity but also actual trading volume, I would tune the reward ratio between buyers and sellers, e.g. to 95:5, maybe 90:10. As we have seen the 98:2 ratio resulted in activity on the buy side only. That way we generate liquidity on one side only which is not very inviting to improve the overall trading volume. By better rewarding the sell side we will likely see more sell orders which should naturally result in more trading volume, especially as both sides want to stay close to each other for a higher reward.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'm also considering this.

Quote
If anything I would add one of your proposed markets as a third one. Also, as you have pointed out the BTS:QC pair on ZB doesn't have that much liquidity, so I wouldn't trust their volume.
If you're in Wechat groups you can find a significant percent of people are trading there, that's why I said it's hot.

Quote
On another note, what happened with stage 1? Has it ended, i.e. no more rewards paid out for now? Unless I'm missing something the previous topic is gone and I can't find any information about its current state.
It's still ongoing. I'm just thinking about extending the contest. To do it we may need to increase the total rewards or decrease rewards for current markets in the contest.

83
Another option is to wait for China's official DCEP. I expect that all major exchanges will add DCEP market when it's out.

84
3/6 multisig...

Would need to have lost 4 keys to lose access.

Not saying it's not possible...but I find it unlikely. Easy for zb to dismiss if we can contact them.
Makes perfect sense.

85
中文(Chinese) / Re: 关于承兑费率的计算方式的问题!
« on: November 12, 2019, 03:48:36 pm »
我感觉承兑费率的计算方式有问题!

费率计算:

当内盘价格>外盘价格

出金手续费=(内盘价格-外盘价格)/内盘价格 - 0.5%(自定义百分数,正负均可);

入金手续费= 2%(自定义百分数,正负均可)- 出金手续费;

锁喂价的情况下,只要内盘价格高于强清结算价,内盘价格一律应按强清结算价处理。

内盘价格0.2244,外盘价格0.186,价差17.11%,

出金手续费=17.11%-0.5%=16.61%,

入金费=2% - 16.61%= - 14.61%,

------------
当内盘价格< 外盘价格

入金手续费率=(外盘价格-内盘价格)/外盘价格 +0.1%(自定义百分数,正负均可)

出金手续费率= 2%(自定义百分数,正负均可)- 入金手续费率

例:内盘价格0.98,外盘价格1,价差2%

入金费率=2%+0.1%= 2.1%
出金费率=2%-2.1%= -0.1%

====================

我的计算方式应该没有问题吧?!

现在怎么出来了19%的出金费率与-16%的入金费率?!

17.11%+2%,入金为负出金-19.11%+3%吗?

这不是倒推内盘强清的节奏,即使加上风险冗余也没这么大差吧?!

内盘价格0.2244,外盘价格0.186,价差17.11%,

这么算吧:

100元RMB,充值qc,买BTS,不算手续费 100 / 0.186 = 537.6 BTS
100元RMB,充值送 16% 也就是拿到 116 bitcny,强清 116/0.2244 = 516.9 BTS
所以充值送 16% 不亏。

100 bitcny,提现扣 19% 得到 81 RMB
100 bitcny,强清买BTS 100/0.2244 = 445.6 BTS,搬到zb卖 445.6 * 0.186 = 82.88 QC
不考虑手续费,提现扣 19% 承兑不亏。

是分母用什么的问题。

86
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: delegate liondani Updated publish delegate data
« on: November 12, 2019, 02:19:45 pm »
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM.
Looks like a scammer.

87
General Discussion / Re: documentation to setup exchange
« on: November 12, 2019, 02:14:33 pm »
thank you!

I've found some stuff but its lacking detail / or I fail to comprehend whats written.
for example;

https://dev.bitshares.works/en/master/development/use_cases/uc_exchange_integration.html#usecase-exchanges


This document is mainly for external exchanges or other service providers to list/utilize BTS and other tokens on the BitShares Blockchain, although it's not purely about how to build a gateway, it contains some info. IMO a better document for the same purpose is this: https://dev.bitshares.works/en/master/bts_guide/tutorials/exchange_single_node.html . For gateways, the main business is transferring assets into and out of the BitShares blockchain, aka processing deposits and withdrawals.

I think we do need another tutorial about how to customize the GUI.

BTW this document is for setting up your own API node(s): https://dev.bitshares.works/en/master/bts_guide/tutorials/distributed-access-hosting.html

Quote
genesis.json - I found the example file from github but why the items in there exist / their purpose isn't entirely clear.
would like an example showing the steps of how to add a coin/wallet

I know a gateway must be developed to handle stuff like coin info
which I partly completed but I don't know how to fill the chart with data - cannot find anything regarding that.

The charts will show automatically on the GUI when you have orders on the book, and have some trading activities.

Quote

All little things difficult to go thru - there is a lot of docu of bitshares but not really grouped for this specific task.

Hopefully someone can give me some hints.

88
General Discussion / Discussion for the market making contest, stage two
« on: November 08, 2019, 01:04:26 pm »
With the first stage of MM contest, we've gained some market depth in the BTS/BTC and BTS/USDT pair. As of writing, the depths of those markets in the BitShares DEX are deeper than top centralized exchanges like Binance, Huobi and Poloniex. Although due to low trading volume which indicates a lack of trading activities, our market depth hasn't been proven stable, it's still a foundation for future improvements.

Admittedly, the hottest BTS market in the centralized exchanges is the BTS/QC pair on zb.com (https://trans.zb.com/markets/btsqc), although the reported volume is somewhat fake. QC is an asset targeting being pegged to CNY, no matter how it's implemented. That means the Chinese traders are the most active parties trading BTS. Actually the market depth of BTS/QC was not very good, at least at the last time when I checked.

The second stage of MM contest aims to build up a new BTS/CNY market in the BitShares DEX, to attract Chinese traders to trade in the DEX. Note: bitCNY is not an option since it's a direct derivative of BTS and the BTS/bitCNY market already has quite some liquidity.

Some options I've considered:
1. CNC. CNC is an IOU asset issued by AEX in BitShares, pegged to CNY, claimed to be backed by sufficient amount of real assets. It's a direct competitor of ZB's QC in the crypto world. Since it's based on BitShares, we have a good reason to support it. On the other hand, AEX still need to show us the proof that it's fully backed.
2. GCNY. GCNY is a market-pegged asset with GDEX.BTC as collateral, created by the GDEX team. The team has ever proposed to transfer the asset to the committee. GDEX has a proof that GDEX.BTC is fully backed, thus GCNY is somewhat trustworthy.
3. A new asset backed by a USDT gateway asset. It's perceived that traders have greater interest in trading in BTS/USDT pair than trading BTS/BTC pair, thus an asset backed by USDT makes more sense. In addition, the exchange rate of USDT/CNY is relatively stable, so it's less risky for traders to create/borrow CNY by putting some USDT as collateral, that means it's easier to bootstrap the BTS/CNY market.

Thoughts?

P.S. I know there are risks related to IOUs, however not taking risks means no progress.

89
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Decentralized 2019 Recap
« on: November 07, 2019, 10:03:38 pm »
Thanks

90
... the BTS workers have been paid more than 40 million CNY(6 million USD) last year and nearly 27 million CNY (4 million USD)this year (THANK for refound400k). ...
Where did you get these numbers?
I heard that total cost for last year is around 1.5 million USD, and far less in this year.

Spreading wrong numbers doesn't help, but will make the situation worse.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 260