It makes me wonder if we need to ask some fundamental questions rather than just focusing on the UI or a particular new feature. Why is our platform essentially being overlooked? Why are the devs not getting involved like they do for ethereum? Why is our market cap not recovering? Is it perceived that one group has too much control? Is it our overall vision? Is it our documentation? Is there too much change? Is it not user friendly enough?

I don't know the answer but i would like to hear others opinions.

IMO bitshares looks like toy experiment to the big players outside the industry because there are no whitepapers worth anything; so when the big players employ experts to do their analysis, they overlook bitshares because there is no formal analysis on the underlying technology, unlike ethereum/ripple which is replete with whitepapers and documentation.

edit: probably a lot of the downtrend is nothing do with bitshares at all. It's probable that all altcoins go through the exact same cycles. I bet if you overlay the lifetime price graphs of every altcoin in the top 10, they'll overlay exactly.

Prisoners didn't do that work for free. Someone had to pay to hold the prisoners.  The cost of slave labor is food, shelter, and clothing as well as guards.

How much did the prisoners get paid, then? They were expending the energy, not their guards. You attempt to bring in exogenous elements to prove a point about an objective measure.

Your definition of 'work' is wrong. Take the example of prisoners who worked tirelessly to build the rail roads in the US; by your definition, they did no work, since they weren't paid.

'Work' is simply energy expended achieving a task. And by that definition, your proposal cannot be a proof of work, since no work is done by doing nothing.

Further, your idea of having block producers hold stake as collateral does nothing to change the inherent security model of the system; attack cost will still be a constant in the amount of stake, vs true POW where attack cost is super linear in the number of blocks produced.

If you really want to stick with proof of stake, I have suggested before that simply auto electing the top N staking block producers ranked by their stake will resolve the problem of voter apathy, which is the true failure mode of DPOS.

witness_node: /bitshares-2/libraries/net/node.cpp:1614: void graphene::net::detail::node_impl::schedule_peer_for_deletion(const peer_connection_ptr&): Assertion `_closing_connections.find(peer_to_delete) == _closing_connections.end()' failed.
crashed the entire process overnight

or let me ask another question, what's your price for USD/BTS?
if you give  the price 0.0031, do you think sell BTS at price 0.0031*1.01, and buy BTS at price 0.0031/1.01 is profit?
if you think sell 10K bts at price 0.0031*1.01 is profit, how about sell 1M BTS at this price?

If you take an average and also provide an equity graph, it will be obvious.

yes, it's the poin
all I can do is try to explain the bot's behave, what thing the profile/config can change.
you can decide if this bot can help you, and what profile you should use

All you can do is:

1. Provide a forward test of profit/loss graph over the course of 1 day/week/month
2. Tell us the ratios of winning to losing trades
3. Tell us the ratio of average winning trade size to losing trade size
4. Tell us the maximum drawdown percentage over the course of your forward tests

This is standard stuff.

edit: example:

I would learn the codebase and document it for 3-4m
bts per month but i doubt any other senior developer would becausethey would look at chart first and extrapolate.

No one should be expected to document the codebase except the original author. Anything else would be highly misleading to future readers of the comments/documentation.

Just throwing out ideas here. Aside from the C++ learning curve, my perspective is more or less aligned with monsterer's. However I haven't seriously looked at the graphene C++ code, only the API commands and I find the API very complicated and not very well structured, with inconsistent arguments for similar API calls for example. I wouldn't surprise me it will be a steep learning curve for all but the most gifted C++ coders.

To clarify, I'm not saying that graphene codebase is difficult to learn in particular, I'm saying that blockchain programming in general is an incredibly specialised and complicated niche that you cannot expect even experienced c++ programmers to just pick up and run with, without prior learning, knowledge and experience in the field.