16
General Discussion / Re: committee controlled open market operation fund ABUSE !!!!
« on: August 08, 2018, 07:51:39 am »
Committee should set "target collateral ratio" immediately.
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.
17
Openledger / Re: Open.Eos gateway down?
« on: July 30, 2018, 08:07:37 am »
From their helpdesk couple of days ago:
Quote
Unfortunately, now EOS gateway is closed. And there is no opportunity to make any deposit or withdrawal transactions.
We understand your feelings about this situation, please accept our apologies.
Our team is trying to deal with all issues as soon as possible. We will inform the community when all works are done and gateway is open again.
All news you can find here https://dex.openledger.io/
Sorry for inconvenience.
18
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Committee Member] - johnr's proposal to join the BitShares Committee
« on: July 19, 2018, 10:44:21 am »Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?
It should be as non-destructive as possible, we can't just take account names from people.
I don't think we should be touching accounts. They work fine as they are. Just increase fees there because people make more accounts than they need (>1.1m accounts created for 30k active users). Faucet improvements in account creation would help. Large number of accounts also puts unneeded strain on the chain.
Large account creation income does not mean it's a profitable operation. It means that the ratio of fees / op is wrong and that other ops are much cheaper than they should be.
I completely agree that we shouldn't touch accounts as long as there are other ideas to increase income.
Committee asset fee income != reserve pool. I will gladly entertain the suggestion that escrow workers come to an agreement with the committee so that they can always trade worker pay BTS to bitUSD or bitCNY at a fair price if the market doesn't provide enough liquidity. I will not accept treating fee income as part of the reserve pool though.
What do you suggest to do with this income if committee doesn't agree with escrow workers on fair price?
It's not asset creation that brings in a lot of funds but rather asset issuance (as gateways transfer UIA IOUs in and out). That is a fee that should probably be not raised (or even lowered) as it should not be such a big part of the reserve pool income and it is also a large cost gateways need to cover (by setting higher market fees). So I would gladly lower their costs there if that means agreeing to lower market fees.
I misunderstood this income. I agree that asset issuance fees should stay low.
19
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Committee Member] - johnr's proposal to join the BitShares Committee
« on: July 18, 2018, 01:38:54 pm »
1) I agree with asset fees on USD/CNY, I would rather use these fund directly to fund worker than to trade
2) totally agree that the network should get bigger share, probably gradually adjusted (e.g. 10 per cent points with every hard fork, target being something between 50% and 80% for network)
I'll copy my Steemit reply to clockwork's post here:
Since account creation and asset creation brings most of the fees, why not to leverage that first?
1. let's start with assets, switch to pricing model similar to domain names... asset creation fee pays it for e.g. 1 year, then you need to renew, assets are being create mainly by businesses so it wouldn't annoy ordinary users; some safety measures would be necessary so that e.g. you cannot "steal" an asset name that issuer forgot to renew; what to do with prefixed assets etc.
2. decouple private keys and account names... similar to first point, human-readable account name is a service that you need to renew annually; users need to be able to get their funds back after their name expires
2) totally agree that the network should get bigger share, probably gradually adjusted (e.g. 10 per cent points with every hard fork, target being something between 50% and 80% for network)
I'll copy my Steemit reply to clockwork's post here:
Since account creation and asset creation brings most of the fees, why not to leverage that first?
1. let's start with assets, switch to pricing model similar to domain names... asset creation fee pays it for e.g. 1 year, then you need to renew, assets are being create mainly by businesses so it wouldn't annoy ordinary users; some safety measures would be necessary so that e.g. you cannot "steal" an asset name that issuer forgot to renew; what to do with prefixed assets etc.
2. decouple private keys and account names... similar to first point, human-readable account name is a service that you need to renew annually; users need to be able to get their funds back after their name expires
20
General Discussion / Re: suggestion for an committee controlled open market operation fund
« on: July 12, 2018, 01:57:11 pm »
The last report is over 2 months old, when can we expect new one?
21
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Reinvention of BitShares Look and Feel
« on: June 25, 2018, 10:38:33 am »
To add to what was already written about this WP, I would prefer a staged approach. Let's find one target group (new users/experienced day traders/occasional traders/savers) or one major use-case (send/receive, trade, create account/backup/restore) and fix that. Ideally something that can be finished in one or two months and then we can decide whether to continue with implementation and/or another WP.
22
General Discussion / Re: New BitShares TESTNET release: test-2.0.180510
« on: May 21, 2018, 11:21:20 am »
Did the testnet hard-forked successfully?
23
General Discussion / Re: New BitShares TESTNET release: test-2.0.180510
« on: May 11, 2018, 10:01:36 am »
@clockwork are you saying that new rules are not inside condition valid after Sat, 19 May 2018 13:58:00 UTC? Witnesses are supposed to get ready and turn the new version of client only after this time?
24
General Discussion / Re: Please add a basic collateral RATIO(1.85 ) asap!!!
« on: April 03, 2018, 08:16:57 am »
Why do you think that 1.85 is better than 1.75?
25
General Discussion / Re: Binance Dexathon - Discussion
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:58:21 pm »They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.
I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.
Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.
There are already companies (directly or indirectly) in the committee. How is it different this time?
26
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [BBF][worker] Update BitShares' General Public Presentation (new domains inside)
« on: March 22, 2018, 08:30:52 am »
Thanks for replies
27
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [BBF][worker] Update BitShares' General Public Presentation (new domains inside)
« on: March 21, 2018, 02:16:47 pm »
The domains have been acquired already... it's too late for bad guys to blackmail the foundation/community at this point. Was it purchased by somebody associated with foundation but paid with private money? Is the requested sum kind of reimbursement?
The cost should not be "up to $15k" but should be an already-known number.
Quote
Costs below are the maximum that could possible be needed and as always we will try for a more economical approach
The cost should not be "up to $15k" but should be an already-known number.
28
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [BBF][worker] Update BitShares' General Public Presentation (new domains inside)
« on: March 21, 2018, 09:11:05 am »
Why is domain costs listed as $15k when they were already purchased? Did you purchase them from 3rd parties? Who paid for that?
bitshares.legal, bitshares.works and bitshares.exchange don't have domain information public, why? Who owns them now?
bitshares.legal, bitshares.works and bitshares.exchange don't have domain information public, why? Who owns them now?
29
General Discussion / Re: suggestion for an committee controlled open market operation fund
« on: March 20, 2018, 01:44:05 pm »
This happened so far:
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25391947
1.11.157917378 Transfer committee-account sent 2,000,000 BTS to committee-cnytrader
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392080
1.11.157923005 Update margin committee-cnytrader changed bitCNY debt by 490,000.0000 bitCNY
and collateral by 1,999,999.00000 BTS
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392723
1.11.157931156 Place order committee-cnytrader placed an order to buy 297,619.04761 BTS at 0.8400 bitCNY/BTS
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392726
1.11.157931204 Place order committee-cnytrader placed an order to buy 275,862.06896 BTS at 0.8700 bitCNY/BTS
How did you come to 0.84 and 0.87 bitCNY/BTS? Feed price is around 0.987 and margin call price is 0.898.
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25391947
1.11.157917378 Transfer committee-account sent 2,000,000 BTS to committee-cnytrader
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392080
1.11.157923005 Update margin committee-cnytrader changed bitCNY debt by 490,000.0000 bitCNY
and collateral by 1,999,999.00000 BTS
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392723
1.11.157931156 Place order committee-cnytrader placed an order to buy 297,619.04761 BTS at 0.8400 bitCNY/BTS
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/block/25392726
1.11.157931204 Place order committee-cnytrader placed an order to buy 275,862.06896 BTS at 0.8700 bitCNY/BTS
How did you come to 0.84 and 0.87 bitCNY/BTS? Feed price is around 0.987 and margin call price is 0.898.
30
General Discussion / Re: suggestion for an committee controlled open market operation fund
« on: March 20, 2018, 01:20:15 pm »while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.
while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.
What will happen with income from worker in these cases? Will it be used to increase collateral?
