Have Gridcoin price feeds been added yet? I'm itching to get market making!

Congratulations on launching the RuDEX, it looks great!

If you reward a short sale, you increase the price of the BTS
If you pay interest for everyone who has bitAssets, then you will create bitAsset buy wall,
which will make it difficult to increase the BTS price.

That's why I do not like this idea.
But I think it would be most beneficial to pay dividends depending on the amount of collateral and open orders on DEX and only for LTM.
It should also be easier to implement.

Similar ideas were discussed here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23706.0.html

Anyway, first we have to be able to pay dividends or any other kind of simple profit sharing

Less BTS in circulation (more BTS locked up in bitAssets) means less BTS on the sell side thus easier to increase the BTS price.

I think that once we reintroduce interest/profit-sharing for MPA/UIA we'll see a significant increase in Bitshare's value.

I can't seem to run a bot on OPEN.GRC:OPEN.BTC, are there price feeds from poloniex for Gridcoin?

Are there plans for additional price feeds from alternative exchanges?

Also, I spotted a small potential glitch in the website - when I try to remove the default favourite trading pairs and add my own favourite pairs, the default pairs return and erase some of my favourite pairs.

Cheers

Quote from: fav on April 12, 2017, 06:25:54 am

Quote from: fav on April 10, 2017, 10:11:25 am

so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?

so... anyone?

Why not you fav? Your idea, take it and run with it. Just think, if you put the same effort into writing ken an email to look at key posts in this thread you believe are convincing, the task you're requesting others to do would already be done.

I know @kenCode and his team have a full plate of work, so I am doubtful on that basis alone he'll be interested in taking this on, but it never hurts to ask. IMO it's a worthy project that has great potential. Whether he agrees or wants to invest the effort to assess the code and then get a proposal written is any one's guess but his.

We could all discuss it in the next Bitshares hangout in person too.

means existing businesses (OL/Blockpay/etc) lose 30% of income stream and get nothing in return.

sounds like a great idea to drive them away, then we can watch grass grow here, because bitshares will be dead for good

This is true.. perhaps it'd be best to make the change to fee distribution once integration of the dividends mechanism is underway?

This is all dandy, but misleading.  The claim that this proposal does not raise user fees is absolutely FALSE!

A LTM account pays 20% to network, and gets 80% back in vesting.  And anyone who has self-registered sub-accounts, is the same -- 20% to network and 80% back to the registering account.  Don't mess with this -- any changes represent a major breach of trust to anybody who paid the $80-$150 to become a Life Time Member.

I see what you mean now, you're right that to LTM users this proposal represents an increase in user fees, as up to this point the LTM benefits include 80% cashback on fees spent.

I'd argue that the only guarantee provided by the LTM membership is that the membership lasts the lifetime of your account, not that the benefits associated with an LTM account will last a lifetime. The wording on LTM membership acquisition page does not imply that the benefits are permanent, and thus are subject to change at the discretion of network consensus.

Do it with market fees.  Then there is no worry about how to convert to a chosen bitAsset, and is market driven -- more volume creates more revenue.

[ ... ]

EDIT: And another reason market fees are better than transaction fees is that is does not change the rules 'retroactively'.  Anybody who doesn't like new market fees can choose not to trade in that market.  Whereas changes which lessen LTM benefits are forced on those who thought they got something different.

So instead of changing the distribution of existing transaction fees, you're proposing new fees to be imposed on the network to pay for the dividends functionality? Wouldn't this potentially have a negative effect on the DEX considering that it would become more expensive to use, as opposed to reallocating transaction fees which would have no change in charged fees to the end user?

Also consider openledger who graciously faucets new user accounts.  They do so with the understanding that they get a cut of the user's transaction fees via registration (and referral, if not otherwise filled) percentages.  I think it's a bad idea to change this now.[/i]

I acknowledge that registrars/referrers will be negatively affected initially by the reduction in their earnings, however if the introduction of dividends/profit-sharing drives a larger user base to the BTS DEX this could be somewhat negated.

------

In fact I feel sick for the ""
this title make Bitshares looks like a scam
I wish never see this title in the official site.

I disagree that this is a scam, it's simply a proposal to change the distribution of currently collected fees to pay asset holders on the BTS DEX.

I agree that we should not explicitly state a static percent as a 'guaranteed interest income', as the income is dependent on the amount of transaction fees generated by the BTS DEX. This could be lower or higher than 5% depending on future use.

bank have many real business to pay the divident.
where is the business based bitshares?
I believe we'll get divident too after we have some real business.
pay divident is the result, not the reason.

The Bitshares business is the utilization of the BTS DEX - the transaction fees generated within the DEX can be utilised to pay dividends to asset holders.
External companies can certainly pay dividends using the BTS DEX (like obits/icoo, etc) but we can also do this for the BTS DEX (without issuing new tokens or buying tokens for the distribution).

---

I tend to agree with alt on this. I would much rather have us start actually burning the fees instead of recycling them into the reserve pool so that bitshares would eventually go deflationary.

You can already do this by utilising the worker proposal mechanism to burn BTS within the reserve pool.
Sending fees to the reserve pool is temporarily deflationary as it will take a long time to burn through these assets at the current spending pace.

---

Benefits over transaction fee distribution:
1. Market Fees produce bitAsset of choice -- no need to convert BTS to bitAsset for dividend payment.
2. Does not violate LTM agreement
3. Does not mess with referral expectations

"Your share in the Decentralized Exchange"

Producing revenue from market activity is a natural income source for an exchange.  Sharing it with Bitshares users makes sense to me.

We already produce revenue from market activity via transaction fees without the need for additional market fees.

I've numbered your points for easier referencing:
1. You can pay transaction fees in assets other than BTS, so we can already immediately distribute bitUSD to bitUSD holders instead of converting it from bitUSD -> BTS prior to redistribution. Unless this is an automated process right now? The committee in charge of the fees assigned to the reserve pool could provide additional information here.
2. The agreement was that the membership you purchased was to exist for a lifetime, not that the benefits were permanent for the lifetime of your account. These benefits should be subject to change, given sufficient network consensus.
3. The referral system being allocated 80% of transaction fees was unfair to begin with, there was an expected replacement income stream for asset holders in the form of a bond market which never materialized. It's time for asset holders to have a slice of the pie allocated to them. Referrals don't keep users around, dividends do.