I'd like to clear up some confusion regarding this idea.

The proposal is simply to add a 0.1% market fee (percentage debatable) to selected bitAssets (like bitCNY) and share as dividend to those with short positions in THAT ASSET (currently have debt).  That's it.  No extra transfer fees, no use for other purposes.

To those who say there is no way to know who is short: Well, of course there is!  The blockchain maintains debt to collateral ratio.  The dividend each shorter will receive is ratio of his/her current debt to the total debt in that asset.

The incentive is to increase the circulation of those bitAssets.  And yes, I believe this WILL improve liquidity -- inevitably some of the increased number of asset will be placed on DEX orderbooks.  Can somebody short without placing in the DEX?  Well, yeah.  Just as they can do now.  But, I believe, increased supply will lead to deeper books.

Will this somehow devalue the underlying bitAsset?  I don't believe so.  There would be a natural equilibrium discovered by market participants.  If the dividend returns are too high, more will short.  If it is too low, less will.

And since the dividend is based upon DEX activity, those who short will have a natural incentive to make markets.  Some will and some won't.

I guess with all the talk of taking fees for other purposes, I thought it best to propose this idea because it rewards those who create bitAssets, which is desperately needed for improved market depth.

Things like dividends and referrals should not be coded into blockchain. They should be paid by businesses which run on top of blockchain from their own revenue, whatever they think they can give away. Blockchain fees should be very small, just enough to cover expenses which are essential for running blockchain, namely witnesses and workers.

Agreed.

For my final 2 BTS on the topic, I don't see why LTM should get a special dividend for doing nothing, especially when it is taken away from referrers.  To much emphasis on referrers has the risk of looking like a Ponzi, so I'm not sure I want to see that changed either.

Cheers!
- kani

Hope you don't mind if I twist this idea a little bit.

How about this:
* Committee-controlled SmartCoins add a 0.1% market fee.
* Every trade in that market generates a small bit of revenue FOR THAT MARKET...
* PAY IT BACK to shorters of that asset!

A refinement to this twist.
* Amount paid in dividend is based upon how much of the particular bitAsset a user has borrowed.  Holders do not get dividend, only collateralized positions.

EDIT: Moved discussion here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23707.0.html

I agree in 100%  !!!
+ "0 fee" for sharedroping.
Maybe this could be some new type of transaction.

I think STEEM has a TX-limited allowance for free transactions.  Maybe a peek at what they're doing for guidance.

When I read the original post, I balked at the "upper-limit" suggested.  NOBODY will pay $100 for a blockchain transaction no matter how much the transferred value.  The fee should be commiserate with the strain on blockchain (transaction network and storage cost, etc).  That said, maybe something like $0.10 - $0.20 might work, but I wouldn't push it too far else you drive away users.

It is quite possible I don't understand the suggestion in relation to bots...  Do remember that bots are already paying 0.05% to 2.00% to trade in some UIAs.  Perhaps adding a fee to committee-controlled SmartCoins could be added for some purpose (maybe as mentioned in your other thread?)

---

Now, to combine referrals with my favorite love: Bitshares bots!   

If *somebody* could make an easy-to-use lightweight cross-platform bot CLIENT, they could integrate themselves as default referrer (or even registrar) for all these new bot accounts!  (Now THERE'S some potential for getting meaningful referral fees!)  Ideally this client would have built in wizard and analysis tools to help determined users find most profitable trading strategies.

Anyway, I do not wish to detract from useful brainstorming.  Thank you for your ideas.  There's some in here worth discussing and hashing out.

@netcoord99

Here's one example why COMPUCEEDS is down (and there are more like it):
https://cryptofresh.com/tx/b3a37439b8923a8edfe0c34509647a82148c3fbb
https://cryptofresh.com/tx/6fd5226e94116bf15ef4b9646f29e4da5d8634d3

TL;DR
'compumatrix1' (the asset creator) issued 5 billion COMPUCEEDS to 'compumatrix' who sold all 5B for 93,500 BTS one minute later (90K BTS then withdrawn to blocktrades 2 minutes later)

---

And let's talk about the BTCPLUS asset from the same 'compumatrix1'.

Asset description (bold emphasis mine):
"BTCPLUS is a bitcoin-backed UIA which can be bought using COMPUCEEDS and other UIAs and SmartCoins. BTCPLUS is a great way to get started with bitcoins without the need to invest into expensive mining rigs."

Are you to tell me that the supply of 6,065,100 BTCPLUS is backed by real Bitcoins???  No way.

See this transaction: 'compumatrix1' issue 5 million BTCPLUS to 'compumatrix'.
https://cryptofresh.com/tx/bf97b7d72133e692d579c89a169bf6707c6441f9

And you blame bots...  Sorry buddy, I think you've been scammed.

Liquidity or not. When you drive the price down to the bottom then the asset becomes worthless and no one wants it!

That's what these bots are doing to assets!

You bot owners  just want to make money off the assets and don't care about the other asset holders!

So don't tell me this is a good thing. I aint buying it! Now they have cost me dearly.

Thanks a lot!

In a free market every trader is encouraged to seek a profitable strategy.  And yes, this absolutely includes bots.  Every major market in the world relies heavily on bots for trade volume and liquidity.  (Profit-seeking bots are most definitely not unique to Bitshares -- they are everywhere).

I reviewed your portfolio.  The problem is not bots -- the problem is with your investment choices.  The assets you hold lack fundamental value.

So, my friend, you may want to reevaluate your strategy.

Are you crazy? Bots is one of few good things currently happening in bitshares.

YES, EXACTLY THIS!

And how are you going to outlaw them? Restrict access to API? Good luck watching bitshares dying then.

Yep yep yep.  Bitshares needs MORE bots, not fewer (or none!).

Don't forget that bots are also feeding funds back into the reserve pool (yes, still small but growing).  I don't foresee any way Bitshares reserve pool becomes sustainable without bots.

So, LET'S KILL THIS IDEA RIGHT NOW!  Bots are GREAT for Bitshares and are here to stay.