Here is the article http://thevalueswan.com/cryptohedge-io-cfsassets-cfsgold-market-making-bots-20-to-50-yearly-return-maybe-black-swan-proof-maybe/

Really nice article, thanks! The 20 - 50 percent yearly return is a bit of an overstatement. I'd be happy if we can get a 1% monthly return on each CFS asset once the markets mature, but right the only real short term return from CFSGOLD will be the speculative future value of the CFSCOIN sharedrop that CFSGOLD holders will receive.

Using bitshares delegates is generally a terrible way to jumpstart a for-profit business. Voters are pretty good at determining whether a delegate is honest or not, but its extremely difficult to determine the expected return of a private startup and what kind of benefit it will give to bitshares. Bitshares stakeholders are not venture capitalists. If we go down this road we might end up with a system where the businesses that are unprofitable and thus cannot raise private capital on their own, but are good at politics and campaigning gets subsidized and run at a loss, paid for by bitshares stakeholders. It results in a less efficient system.

Delegates should be for public goods to the bitshares blockchain that cannot use another business model without seeing a serious reduction in their direct benefit to the blockchain, such as core development, open source development, and bitasset marketing. It's also fair that flagship businesses that have been long time members of the community and have made big contributions (before they ever campaigned for delegates), such as DACX and tradeBTS get subsidized. Similarly subsidizing metaexchange is fine since they are making their entire platform opensource (and cryptohedge is probably going to copy it, among others)

But if you want to raise money for your business as a newcomer, then you should make a UIA and raise funds from investors who are willing to take the risk of betting on your business model. It's not fair to socialize this risk and the cost of funding the business to all bitshares investors.

They'd lose all their funding from the bitcoin cult if they supported an altcoin though. local trade is a perfect match for bitassets though. They are perfect for easily on- and offramping.

creating and covering bitUSD for BTS doesn't actually affect the market cap of BTS, it just moves the risk around among the economic actors.

I'm betting on good news from light wallet coming out tomorrow

How do you source your bitUSD?

Why? The point of expiration is to provide BitAsset holders with a guarantee that they can exit into BTS within 30 days at or above the price feed (in BitAsset/BTS). That is still true. They will eventually be able to put a relative BitUSD sell order at 0% offset from the price feed and then just wait. We can guarantee that their order will be matched within 30 days. There is no need to force expired orders to buy 10% below the price feed, unless of course their collateral ratio drops below 200% in which case they should then be margin called and buy any BitUSD sells at a price that is above the price 10% below the price feed (BTW, this is probably a good time to bring this comment to the attention of the developers).

Right this makes sense. As long as they'll get margin called if the collateral goes too low then there's nothing wrong with letting their order sit at the price feed. At first I thought it was unfair they wouldn't have to pay interest, but at high bitasset demand interest rate goes to 0 anyway.

There are good reasons why the price feed was first introduced. We don't want the short market to drive the growth of BTS priced in the underlying asset of the BitAsset, that should be done by the market between actual BitUSD holders and BTS (or actual USD holders and BTS on outside exchanges). Removing the limitation could instead break the peg and drive the value of the BitAsset to zero. Now that particular problem doesn't necessary limit us from changing the short limit to slightly above (in BitAsset/BTS) the price feed, say even 10% above (since if it does not reflect outside reality the price feed won't follow the shorts). But the worry I have with that is that it prevents existing BitAsset holders from having the guarantee to exit into BTS within 30 days by simply offering to sell at the price feed. If the shorts are very eager to short sell the BitAsset, the actual BitAsset holders may be forced to sell their BitAsset at a 10% discount from the peg.

When I say above the price feed i mean that the bitasset is overvalued (so feed is in BTS per bitasset). I get super confused when the feed is described the other way so this is how I have to think of it . If the feed is 100 BTS per bitUSD, then if there's a buy order at 115 BTS per bitUSD it should be possible to match that buy order and all other buy orders by shorting all the way down to the feed price for an instant expected profit (since you can expect bitasset price to tend towards the feed price). Then every time bitasset demand increases enough to make buy orders go above the feed, there will be an incentive to short the bitasset since you can be certain you will profit from the amount that the buy orders exceed the feed price. It should never be possible to short below the feed price (so short orders at 90 BTS per bitUSD should not be possible if the feed is at 100 BTS per bitUSD).

I think a good start would be to get rid of the TITAN name to make things simpler and more on point. Call it registered names and stealth transactions. You can have registered names without having to use stealth transactions, and you can also do stealth transactions without using a registered name. When sending to someone you'll either be sending to a registered name, or to an account key. When you've typed in the name or account key, you will then have the option of sending either a regular transaction or a stealth transaction. The stealth transaction should have a warning that tells people not to use it unless they understand how it works, and that only full nodes can see them.

Quote from: Rune on February 08, 2015, 02:59:33 pm

I just did a bitUSD short at a pricelimit of 115 BTS per USD. It didn't get matched even though it's within 10% of the feed, and it's not even showing up on the orderbook. Looks like there is a bug of some sort. It's pretty bad because it removes the automatic incentive there'd otherwise be to get rid of these expired calls, I have a feeling that if they stay on the books for too long it'll be a major sell signal.

Looks like normal orders that are up to 117 BTS per USD are not getting matched either. What can we do? We need to get rid of this ASAP.

Yes, the 30 day limit was a terrible idea.

I would like to know if this forced 30 day cover worked in the past?

It would work perfectly if we were able to sell or short bitUSD into the forced cover at 10% above the feed. People doing this would earn an instant 10% on their trade so you'd see people rushing in to remove this giant forced cover while making a nice profit. But it seems like a bug of some kind is preventing it from happening. They were probably planning to fix this in 0.7, the market update, so it's terribly bad luck that the giant cover happened now.