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 - Ander

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 234
376
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 09:01:18 pm »

Are you positive you understand all the element in #2?

As I said up the thread it has some big potential negative impacts, which need addressing.
For example - It seems the LM traders might get the LM discount only on half of their trades.

No I am not certain that I understood it.


This is what i thought the proposal means:

"Under the proposed change, the committee members would change the market fee from 0% to something competitive with centralized exchanges and then revenue earned from these fees would qualify for the referral program"


To summarize: They will add a (0.2%, aka 'competitive with centralized exchanges') trading fee to trades (to go along with eliminating or reducing the flat fee), and then this 0.2% fee would qualify for the referral program, meaning that a lifetime member would get a big discount, and people would be incentivized to refer others to get a portion of their trading fees.  To me, this looked great fro the referral program.


If this proposal is like I understand it, then I support it.  If its something else, then I guess I didnt understand it.

377
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 07:07:16 pm »

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 


This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?

Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS  for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.

Glad some others are seeing this the same way.  Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS.  I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well.  Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?

I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.

378
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 05:41:09 pm »
Bytemaster, do you have any thoughts on my idea that maybe we dont need proposal #1, that modifying the fee for cancelled orders to 0.1 BTS might still prevent spam while also not being high enough to make any traders feel that they cannot use BTS? 

If my idea is workable it would save time and not require this change and BTS to be spent on it. 

(Of course, if there are any good reasons why this wouldnt work or if you have any good info that this will still not be okay with traders, then maybe we still need proposal #1.  For example, if a significant exchange had told you "we will adopt bitshares, but only if the fee for cancelled orders is zero", then that alone would be a good reason to need proposal #1.

379
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 04:53:36 pm »
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?

can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?

seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...

the same goes for market fees ?


16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?

is anyone buying these numbers?

not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.


please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?

no one?

Software development is pretty expensive in reality.  $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.

380
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 04:16:10 pm »
Thanks for this, its nice to have something of a roadmap going forward.


My feedback:
#2-5 look good.


Regarding proposal #1:

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case.  At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders.  A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.

I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.



Could you discuss your thoughts on needing to implement this new system rather than simply change the fee for cancelled orders to only 0.1 BTS?  Are you really sure that a chance to just 0.1 BTS would not be sufficient to solve the problem, or that it would still be perceived as a problem by users?


Thanks!

381
General Discussion / Re: 2.0 is here, so how do we earn interest?
« on: November 09, 2015, 09:56:02 pm »
We need a bond market for that but is isnt implemented yet.

382
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 09, 2015, 09:19:13 pm »
1. lend out your BTS at 5% for 60 days

if they want to borrow your shares to short, make it costly

Too bad that tons of other people are loaning them at .01%.

Also almost no bitshares are being shorted.  The problem isnt people shorting, its that everyone either gave up and dumped, or got margin called.

383
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:06:57 pm »
I have a gut feeling...1500-1600 sat real soon.

This is definitely not that it might seem. Looks like a cheap trick to make everyone open longs and then smack the shit out of it all the way down to 700. Something is wrong here. Still watching.

Yep.

As long as this community keeps trying to margin up and keeps losing their BTS it is not going anywhere.

The only way BTS will sustain a rise is if the community as a whole is buying and holding, fully paid for positions, gradually removing supply from the market over time, and attracting new community members to join us.

Every time someone in the community tries to margin, blows up and loses their BTS, it not only costs us a community member, it also puts all their shares back out in the hands of traders who dont care about BTS.  Stop margining. 

384
General Discussion / Re: Gateway Iiquidity
« on: November 06, 2015, 11:24:03 pm »
Margin trading doesnt really support the price long term.  It temporarily increases it for a time in the short term and then decreases it when you cover the position.

Buying and holding supports the price.

385
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 11:22:44 pm »
b) With the 2.0 launch Bitshares is basically saying we are going to compete with and potentially destroy central exchanges.

Any centralized exchange can join Bitshares and use it as their back end to reduce their costs, and can make money off referrals to refer their customers. 

So really we arent trying to destroy any centralized exchanges, just get them to join us.

386
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 10:13:48 pm »
This all probably means its time to dump bts again or something, lol.

387
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 09:45:25 pm »
Whats with the gigantic sell wall at 1700 ?? is that there to help keep prices down ?

It is to make the # of shares for sale versus buy support look really bad, so that people will sell.  Because some people just compare sell vs buy support.

388
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 09:31:14 pm »

Agree with all this. In fact, I even margin longed BTS just now, 2.5x lol. My first time playing with margin, curious to see how it is. (only risking 5,000 BTS as collateral though, heh. Not looking to implode here).

Fortunately 5000 is basically nothing, so thats not really much of a risk.  But I hope our rise can be from real buying not just margin buys that will result in sells later.


Quote
Glad to see you're still with us Ander. Thought we might have lost you that other day.

Just trying to manipulate sentiment. :P

389
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 09:01:26 pm »
BTS 2.0 is fine.  Its not perfect but its not like its seriously broken or anything that would warrant the selloff way below 1400.


* The Chinese exchanges (btc38/yunbi) fixed their problems and upgraded to 2.0, and reopened deposits and withdrawals.  No more being worried about fractional reserves or worried that they will never upgrade or might even try to stick with BTS 0.9 and make a fork chain or something crazy like that. 

* Chinese money can once again buy into BTS.

* Referral program is finally working, so people can begin promotions.

* We have some positive discussions going on about how to improve the things that people dont like about BTS, namely fees and UI stuff. 


And most importantly:  BTS is currently deflationary!!  The only worker right now is the fund to pay for user asset fees.  This is not an account that is going to get sent to polo or btc38 and dumped on the market, its to help people use assets, it doesnt represent any "real" inflationary pressure.  The rest of the potential inflation is going to the recycle400k worker which means its going straight back into the reserve and is also not inflationary.  Fees are exceeding the payment to witnesses, and with no workers actually taking BTS to be sold right now, real supply is going down!  That means everyone's BTS is slowly representing a larger stake of the whole system.  Very slowly right now, but whats really important is that its not inflating!


Also everyone panic sold about as hard as is possible, and people got liquidated, so most weak hands are probably out right now, and most of the people in BTS now are those that held through the drop and probably wont want to sell until its back up to reasonable prices, or smart money that bought the panic.

390
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 06, 2015, 08:52:46 pm »
BTS just broke the bollinger band top for the first time in AGES and the sell side is withdrawing. Could be a quick ride to 0.000014 as first stop.  I'm buying at this point (About 100 BTC position)

Yeah I bought some too with some profits from trades the past several days.  Time for everyone that panic sold the bottom to fomo back in, lol!

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 234