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
46
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。
https://bitshares.dacplay.org/market/BOTFUND.USD_CNY
https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/BOTFUND.USD_CNY
由于web wallet一个bug, 上面两个链接貌似不工作。workaround方法:
进入https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/div.botfund/overview/,点击Orders,再点击BOTFUND.USD : CNY链接进入交易。
BOTFUND运行1年多,效果还不错。但是由于BTS市场深度不够,容纳不了太多的套利资金,现新发行BOTFUND.USD基金进行BTCC和BTCE之间的搬砖套利。
运行模式与BOTFUND类似,每期为一月,每月结算一次并分红。每个周期会挂出所售基金5%的买单方便基金持有人退出。
基金管理费为利润的25%。
风险提示:
最大的风险是交易所跑路,BTCC和BTCE任一个交易所任何形式的跑路都会造成最高至本金2/3的损失
交易机器人存在被黑的风险。
本基金不承诺收益

47
I've created my UIA BOTFUND.USD using CLI. I can place order on it and see my orders on web wallet (https://bitshares.dacplay.org/account/div.botfund/orders/  https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/div.botfund/orders/).
But when I tried to open market for it (https://bitshares.dacplay.org/market/BOTFUND.USD_CNY), it stucks there. I can see error from console like below:
I also tried https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/BOTFUND.USD_CNY 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 (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/app.js?v=20160202102659:14:10229)
    at t.i.value (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/app.js?v=20160202102659:95:27503)
    at y._renderValidatedComponentWithoutOwnerOrContext (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:16:19731)
    at y._renderValidatedComponent (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:16:19819)
    at y.mountComponent (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:16:16119)
    at Object.o.mountComponent (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:16:5093)
    at v.y.Mixin._mountChildByNameAtIndex (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:18:2661)
    at v.y.Mixin._updateChildren (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:18:2059)
    at v.y.Mixin.updateChildren (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:18:1660)
    at v.Mixin._updateDOMChildren (https://dn-dacplay.qbox.me/bts2/vendors.js?v=20160202102659:17:15160)

48
[0201更新]:
本期利润1931.93,扣除管理费482.98CNY后期末净值为1.190708CNY,共售出9999BOTFUND。已在内盘挂1.190698CNY数量999.8BOTFUND的买单及1.190708CNY的1BOTFUND卖单。

49
一月一次还行,另外现在手续费下降了一点。但是现在最大的障碍是还有些(大概1000+)BOTFUND没有claim.
什么问题?最新版的钱包应该都可以claim了
是还有些人的BOTFUND没有claim,就没有办法计算和进行分红。参见http://cryptofresh.com/a/BOTFUND

50
话说分红不是要转账费么?还是挂单回购方式费用低吧。

一月一次还行,另外现在手续费下降了一点。但是现在最大的障碍是还有些(大概1000+)BOTFUND没有claim.

51
希望还没有claim BTS2 BOTFUND的尽快claim,以便于进行分红。

52
[0101更新]:
本期利润203.54,扣除管理费50.88CNY后期末净值为1.118260CNY,共售出9999BOTFUND。已在内盘挂1.118250CNY数量999.8BOTFUND的买单及1.118260CNY的1BOTFUND卖单。

53
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.

54
[1210更新]:
本期利润366.71,扣除管理费91.68CNY后期末净值为1.110628CNY,共售出9999BOTFUND。已在内盘挂1.110618CNY数量999.8BOTFUND的买单及1.110628CNY的1BOTFUND卖单。

从下期开始,公告周期及频率改为1月1次,每个月初进行计算及公告。

55
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.

56
General Discussion / Re: Better API - Please Help Define It
« on: December 03, 2015, 02:03:22 pm »
http://cryptofresh.com/api/holders?asset=BROWNIE.PTS 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.

57
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.

58
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.

60
希望修改规则加入按交易百分比收交易手续费时,能进一步细分maker,taker的交易手续费百分比做成参数。并能支持负数(当然也可以都是正数,只需要maker%+taker%>=0就可以,我觉得maker%=-0.05%,taker%=0.1%的设置比较好,可以平衡各方利益),这样就可以鼓励maker挂单增加流动性。

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