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 - botfund

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
中文(Chinese) / BOTFUND.USD搬砖套利基金发行50000份
« on: February 14, 2016, 12:11:33 am »
购买请使用内盘BOTFUND.USD : CNY交易对。
由于web wallet一个bug, 上面两个链接貌似不工作。workaround方法:
进入,点击Orders,再点击BOTFUND.USD : CNY链接进入交易。

I've created my UIA BOTFUND.USD using CLI. I can place order on it and see my orders on web wallet (
But when I tried to open market for it (, it stucks there. I can see error from console like below:
I also tried with no luck and console below:
Is it a bug of web wallet or is there anything wrong with my creation?
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'classList' of nulle.add @ vendors.js:35t.exports @ vendors.js:35i.value @ app.js:93o.notifyAll @ vendors.js:16h.close @ vendors.js:18i.closeAll @ vendors.js:16i.perform @ vendors.js:16i.perform @ vendors.js:16g.perform @ vendors.js:16k @ vendors.js:16i.closeAll @ vendors.js:16i.perform @ vendors.js:16p.batchedUpdates @ vendors.js:17u @ vendors.js:16r @ vendors.js:16c.enqueueSetState @ vendors.js:16r.setState @ vendors.js:18c.value @ app.js:64(anonymous function) @ app.js:61(anonymous function) @ app.js:61
app.js:76 time to process limit orders: 2 ms
Error in MarketsActions.subscribeMarket:  TypeError: Cannot read property 'length' of undefined
    at Object.i.number_to_text (
    at t.i.value (
    at y._renderValidatedComponentWithoutOwnerOrContext (
    at y._renderValidatedComponent (
    at y.mountComponent (
    at Object.o.mountComponent (
    at v.y.Mixin._mountChildByNameAtIndex (
    at v.y.Mixin._updateChildren (
    at v.y.Mixin.updateChildren (
    at v.Mixin._updateDOMChildren (





希望还没有claim BTS2 BOTFUND的尽快claim,以便于进行分红。


Paying a negative fee immediately from the buyer who pays a positive fee is nothing more than shifting the price.  It is a meaningless change.
Taker pays the fee to both maker and the network. It's more than shifting price because it encourages makers thus improving the liquidity.

Also, the present value of future fees is much greater than the value of current fees.  We therefore transfer value from the future into the present.  Future liquidity incentive requirements are less than initial requirements. 
Maker% and taker% can be set as parameters. This can be addressed by tuning the parameters as time goes and can even be set both to positive values when we don't need to encourage makers.

Those that have proposed simply paying interest to the first order on the book start to get the idea. The question is, where does the interest come from, who funds it?  If you want to do more than simply shift the price, then you will need to bring in outside funding.  I am bringing in the outside funding from future fees in the same market.  You all are suggesting bringing in that funding by diluting current BTS holders.   Furthermore, that solution does little to help out UIA issuers which want to improve their own liquidity and raise money to do so.  My monetizing future fees it helps UIA issuers to fund their liquidity without actually issuing a security.
If the taker is the buyer of BTS on BTS/USD, he pays the fee using BTS by getting less received BTS.
If the taker is the seller of BTS on BTS/USD, he pays the fee using USD by getting less received USD. The maker and the network will get USD and the network can use the USD as a fee pool to fund possible interest as BTS1 or to the first order on the book. This can also be used to further encourage makers in a time sensitive way like you proposed.



General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 03, 2015, 02:23:16 pm »
I think we should support percentage based trade fee and split it to maker% and taker% which can be set by committee. maker%+taker% >= 0. You can set maker% = -0.05% and taker% = 0.1%. This way maker can share fee with the network.
This is a simpler way to do the same thing.

  • NEGATIVE_MAKER_FEE = cash in the pocket of makers
  • MAKER_SHARES = more complexity and rules to accomplish the same result

I also think that liquidity would be helped by allowing orders to be placed relative to the price feed.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm saying that MAKER_SHARES aren't needed because a negative maker fee solves the same problem much more simply.
I really like this to be implemented and negative maker fee to improve the liquidity. I saw it worked especially near the fill price.
Regarding to the implementation, I know it's simpler if you allow both assets as fee. In this way you just match the orders like there's no fee. Then just subtract the fee from the received assets. Let's take BTS:USD as an example. If the taker is selling 10000 BTS and taker fee is 0.1% and the price is 0.05. Before fee subtract, it's 500 USD. After subtract, he gets 499.5USD and 0.5USD will be collected as fee. You'll have the same simple calculation even when maker's fee is >0, =0 or <0. That's why most exchanges use this simple rule and keep both assets as profit.
If BTA as fee is impacting the architecture, we may need the fee pool to turn it into BTS but that will be not so elegant. I think it's good to allow profit to be BTA. Anyway normally BTS and BTA fees will be likely to be similar in value.

[edit]: in the example, if maker's fee >0, it should be on BTS and USD if maker fee<0.

General Discussion / Re: Better API - Please Help Define It
« on: December 03, 2015, 02:03:22 pm » shout out to [member=21903]roadscape[/member] (we requested this for our sharedrop system).

Actually I've asked [member=21903]roadscape[/member] and got his kind reply as below:
you will need to iterate through the accounts and call list_account_balances for each one. You can use list_accounts to get all the accounts, but you'll need to paginate through the results.
That's why I ask for list_asset_owners to filter the accounts. I thought of returning balances also but for simplicity I think list_asset_owners is enough to get started.

General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 03, 2015, 01:40:49 am »
I think we should support percentage based trade fee and split it to maker% and taker% which can be set by committee. maker%+taker% >= 0. You can set maker% = -0.05% and taker% = 0.1%. This way maker can share fee with the network.

General Discussion / Re: Better API - Please Help Define It
« on: December 03, 2015, 01:32:17 am »
vector<string> list_asset_owners(asset_id_type asset_id, string lower_bound, limit=100)
  return asset owners list so that we can calculate asset distribution for things like dividend.


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