No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally,  the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well.

So basically we are paying CNX to fix their stuff

BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.

This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

Would anyone know how to check for all transactions from Poloniexwallet to cylonmaker2053?

http://cryptofresh.com/tx/e85a7f92547d2e09b7ad6e54b8a5ffd2fbdf1508

http://cryptofresh.com/tx/4c9fceb795aeaf16934e0fa67b73db78e491f852

http://cryptofresh.com/tx/adf028b45eab5d9f661a5aa2ee73b33ac6511aa5

Is there what you are looking for?

Thanks. Do you think that the BTS that I transfered from Poloniex to an Open.BKS address is lost forever?

They should not be lost. Contact Poloniex support.

Minimum balance requirement is good to prevent some types of spam, like account creation spam, but don't get rid of transaction fees altogether. Let people buy higher bandwidth. Make small tps per account free, but charge fee for those who exceed the limit which  depends on current network usage. Make it exponential depending on number of tps over limit.

LTM can give users a larger "burst window" by averaging their bandwidth over a month rather than a week.
Alternatively, LTM can be allocated X% of capacity and regular users can be allocated Y%.

In other words LTM is like the HOV lanes, there is less traffic so you can move faster.

Could we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.

E.g.
I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.

But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.

It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.

We could have 0 bts/Tx for anything below 10$. Wich could be great for marchant as coffee shop, newspaper store, ect..
Then we could charge 0.1% up to 1000€ to compensate for the fees not generated below 10€. (I'm thinking about for the Ref. Prog.)

I would keep a basic_fee for normal-users and the RP, and I would try to push all the cool stuff (like 0 transfer fee) for LTM-only.

ok... I believe we all see, that majority of community likes this idea. What should be done next to turn this idea into reality? Worker proposal?

I think bytemaster would need some times to really figure out all the details.
I would really like if those details were defined also with community input.

Once the details are figured out, cnx should have an estimation about cost and time needed.

You are correct.  I meant trading fee's, not transfer fee's.  If trading fee's are left alone or increased, using the referral program to support MT4 implementation is still viable.

Do you see an FBA that take the revenues from the trading_fee and account_upgrade?
It may work.

I'm not sure if the committee members who wanted to lower the transfer fee's also wanted to lower the trading fee's.  I may have incorrectly assumed they wanted to reduce both sets of fee's.

At present, the % trading_fee is up to the issuer of the asset, so committee have no power outside bitassets.
Moreover, at present, the trading fee are not subject to the referral program (committee have nothing to do with this), but there are two proposed change about it:
-BSIP#4 "Distribute Market Fees on Core Asset to Referral Program" and
-BSIP#6"Market Maker Incentivization"

I still think we should also and mainly consider to have a global % trading fee that apply as  basic % trading fee that every issuer owe to the network. (it could be very low, since it apply to both side of every market)
(at the end of the day the platform allow the issuer to create his asset and manage all the trades, the platform gives him a trading engine, so imo make sense to have a global fee for it)

Anyway, with the last Fee Schedule, the committee actually would like to *activate* the % trading fee on bitassets (atm there is only a fee for create and cancel order, but not a % trading fee)
So the committee would like to do just the opposite of what you thought, I guess.

As far as your question of why someone who trades with thousands of dollars would only trade 3 times a day.  That's an average i'm taking based on my experience and the time I have spent with other traders in various trading groups.  There are people who trade millions of dollars and maybe only make 1 or 2 trades a week.  The amount of capital a trader has doesn't dictate the amount of trades a trader makes.

I see, I am not a trader so I just trust you on this point.

Maybe things are a little bit different for those who provides bot?

But at the end of the day, with % trading fee, is not really important the number of trades, but the volume actually.

The whole point of this thread was to talk about why there is a lack of liquidity on the DEX and how it could be addressed in a low risk way.  MT4 would drive much more liquidity to the bts platform, but the only way I can see it being implemented and profitable would be if the referral program could be used to generate income.

I would like to see a plugin for MT4 too.

Personally I would see the biggest revenue stream from the account_upgrade operation. Moreover if the shareholders like the idea of restricting some features only to LTM.