61
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Project administration & essential maintenance
« on: October 16, 2017, 09:22:23 pm »
Why did this worker never get approved? Was the proposal flawed in some way?
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.
I differ with you in that I believe the only reason BitBTC has not been very successful (volume) thus far has been due to lack of first mover advantage against Open.BTC, marketing, and thus, any incentive to make a market or add liquidity to that market.
Agree. So why do not we make the DEX directly exchange BTC for BitBTC? can be done with Atomic Swaps or very easily with my proposal.
Interesting point by you on creating SmartCoins. Are they identical to "real" Committee-issued Smartcoins, in this case?
Not necessarily, but they can be made identical, i. e. with identical flags + permissions etc.. You can also create them and assign ownership to the committee.
Doesn't seem to have had any update for months... needed some fixes and improvements last I used it.Any news here?
With improved DEX you would think there would be so more intrest in tje bot.
Indeed.
Volumes are still up. Are people using other bots now besides BTS Bots? I'd like to know the best options to add Dex liquidity now.
BTSBOTS.com is a fantastic solution right now.
But that's a completely different business model, with a whole bunch of additional risks (on the side of the gateway owner). I perfectly understand that they do not offer such a service.
This business model may be actually not that risky as it seems. Gateway don't need to keep 100% BTC reserve in this case, just enough to satisfy daily withdrawal volume. When users deposit BTC, gateway would buy bitBTC on DEX, if the offer exists, or issue in other case. Risk of margin call would not be a problem for them, because they would keep BTC and bitBTC reserves, and if BTS price falls, they would sell a fraction of their reserves and add to collateral. When users withdraw their bitBTC, gateway would settle its debt. They don't offer such a service because they think that everybody should be happy with their IOU, and they don't need to bother to improve their service, but evidently many people are not happy with the current business model.
bitBTC is not a successful example.
BTC is not as stable as CNY/USD, so borrowing or holding bitBTC means much more risk than doing the same to bitCNY/bitUSD, and BTC itself is a blockchain token, no enough necessity to create other token to peg it.
OpenLedger is good, but what they do is far from enough, as a gateway, they should do much more market making work to their UIA but they do not, that's why I am preparing another gateway, the name is GDEX.
one key point for BTS to grow is the demand for smart coins grow, which means there should be many assets in DEX for traders to trade. in other words, we need to make DEX an exchange with liquidity and depth similar to central exchange.
surely if we can realize side chain or some other cross-chain way to move tokens from otherchains to BTS, we may not need most of the UIA, but now in my view we still need to rely on UIA to make DEX to grow.
the other key point for BTS is to be listed in more central exchanges, we need more volume for BTS, we need BTS price to grow, only then it's possible for smartcoin supply to grow and attract more people to accept it.
for example, as China banned cryptocurrency exchange, now it's not easy for people to buy tokens with CNY, some exchanges outside China are considering to open bitCNY markets, their main concern is that bitCNY supply is too low.
that's also what I am trying to do: make BTS be listed in more exchanges and create a gateway to make DEX have much more trading volume.
I think you are contradicting yourself here. HOW would you exchange BTC for bitBTC or trade BTC for bitUSD without a centralized gateway? I thought that's exactly what you're proposing to get rid of.
Also, you didn't give any reasons why SmartCoins are not effective for Altcoins.
Oh, they would be as effective as they are for BTC/USD/CNY. I just don't see a use for altcoins at all.
Providing feeds for additional coin means additional work for the witnesses, so we should only add SmartCoins if there's a benefit to be expected. I don't expect significant volume from altcoins, and therefore no benefit either.
Not sure if you're aware of it, but *anyone* can create SmartCoins. No need to lobby for this - if you want them, just go ahead and create them.
See this post about Trezor "Password" support. Effectively protect your bitshares account in this way.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25043.msg311272.html#msg311272
it's the same as any other password manager. it does not protect your keys, which is the point of trezor integration
A SmartCoin is not the same as its underlying counterpart. If you have actual bitcoins in your BTC wallet and want to exchange them for USD, the bitBTC/bitUSD market is useless to you.
SmartCoins are useful for traders (because they're derivatives), and they could be useful to merchants/users for transferring value (at least in the case of FIAT derivatives). The latter is unlikely to happen for altcoins.