The question here is not "why". There may be a million of reasons why. OP ask "how".

Bitspark is planning to create some bots (https://blog.bitspark.io/bitspark-and-the-future-of-zephyr-roadmap/).

 

Quote from: yvv on December 04, 2017, 05:41:17 pm

Quote

Bitshares does a horrible job of reporting / P&L anyway (for now), as you can't export your trade histories more than a few blocks back.

This is true, and this is pita. If this proposal would address P&L reporting issue, I would support this worker without asking no more questions, plus offer a donation on top.

This is not true anymore even if we have no infrastructure developed for ElasticSearch plugin yet ...

I have a working wrapper for it here: https://github.com/oxarbitrage/bitshares-es-wrapper with some sample urls on what can be done.

API call can be constructed to get all the FILL ORDERS from an account , check the last sample of the readme. By scraping the operation and the amounts inside i suppose the p&l can be obtained.

This is nice, but this is still very cryptic. I can't imagine average trader being able to parse this output. Can it be a little more user friendly, like actual asset names instead of ids, like "X of asset A exchanged for Y of asset B, date, time"?

Quote from: yvv on December 04, 2017, 09:47:04 am

Quote from: Crypto Kong on December 03, 2017, 10:00:17 am

Quote from: yvv on December 01, 2017, 03:41:33 pm

Btsbots already does pretty much what you describe, and they did not ask for funding through worker or other way. Sorry bro, but you have a tough competition here.

Bts bots is not easy to use and no one knows exactly what it’s programmed to do, for example it doesn’t work from the midpoint it works from the settlement price. This is not ideal. In active markets we need the option to work from a calculated mid point.

The point of the worker proposal is to provide liquidity providing tools to the masses so that everyone can help increase liquidity on the dex. Btsbots will never provide this. Also in the proposal it offers two additional liquidity providing strategies that btsbots does not offer (triangle arbitrage and staggered orders).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reference price which is calculated from multiple exchanges weighted by their volume is what actually makes btsbots useful.  Reference price calculated from a single market is not robust. And, btsbots is dumb easy to use, I don't know what difficulty are you talking about. You can download its source and look what is it programmed top do any time.

Thankyou for your opinion, can I ask your opinion on the other two strategies we intend to provide that btsbots does not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not against another bot. I just say that open bot already exists and works very well. Reading your OP, I felt the same way as pc expressed, honestly. Just make your proposal plausible and it will be supported by community. If you mention what experience do you have in trading or developing trading bots, this will help to gain the trust.

Quote from: yvv on December 01, 2017, 03:41:33 pm

Btsbots already does pretty much what you describe, and they did not ask for funding through worker or other way. Sorry bro, but you have a tough competition here.

Bts bots is not easy to use and no one knows exactly what it’s programmed to do, for example it doesn’t work from the midpoint it works from the settlement price. This is not ideal. In active markets we need the option to work from a calculated mid point.

The point of the worker proposal is to provide liquidity providing tools to the masses so that everyone can help increase liquidity on the dex. Btsbots will never provide this. Also in the proposal it offers two additional liquidity providing strategies that btsbots does not offer (triangle arbitrage and staggered orders).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reference price which is calculated from multiple exchanges weighted by their volume is what actually makes btsbots useful.  Reference price calculated from a single market is not robust. And, btsbots is dumb easy to use, I don't know what difficulty are you talking about. You can download its source and look what is it programmed top do any time.

There is technically no difference if you keep BTS as collateral or bitUSD or other bitAsset. As long as collateral asset can be easily converted into borrowed asset, this is fine. Any bitAsset can be easily converted into any other bitAsset either through a direct market or through forced settlement to BTS first.

This is actually a very nice idea. The first bitAsset should still be issued by somebody, who is long on BTS. Let's say, Alice issues 1st  bitBTC backed by BTS and sells it to Bob, who is long on BTC. Now, Bob can lock his 1 bitBTC as collateral, issues 5000 bitUSD and sells them to Carol, who wants to keep her money in blockchain instead of bank account. Carol's 5000 bitUSD would be effectively backed by a 20000 USD worth of BTS, which Alice locked. Carol can settle her bitUSD for BTS any time. This way every bitAsset is properly backed and a risk of shorting is distributed between multiple people.

Actually, bitAssets is a pioneering experiment with a lot of unrealized potential. If it was re-iterated in a smart way, it could surely beat a shit out of centralized competitors in margin trading.

Btsbots already does pretty much what you describe, and they did not ask for funding through worker or other way. Sorry bro, but you have a tough competition here.