Summarizing the most important parameters update for HONEST.USD and HONEST.BTC Smart Assets, to increase the profitability and sustainability for these participants.

Increasing profitability for market makers:
-  0.1% Market Fee replaced by
0% Maker Fee & 0.2% Taker Fee

Increasing profitability for price feeders:
- Margin Call Fee: 0% → 0.5%

Increasing protection for HONEST.Asset borrower:
- MCR: 160% → 150%
- Initial Collateral: 150% → 165%
- MSSR: 25% → 13%
- Settlement Delay: 1 h → 4 h
- Settlement Offset: 2% → 1.5%
- Settlement Fee: 0% → 1.5%
- Max. Settlement Volume: 100% → 0.5%
- Black Swan Respond Method: Global Settlement → Individual Settlement to fund ( implemented after hard fork of new BitShares 6.0 core upgrade)

---
https://t.me/onestcommunity

Honest Assets would be a better alternative to creating new assets.

Feel free to join our community channel, if you have not done so far:
https://t.me/onestcommunity

Liquidity pool fees:
create: 50 BTS

too cheap, 250-500BTS is fair

In order to build up more supply, it is now not possible to force-settle EUR or RUBLE.

To build more supply, more liquid BTS, more bitEUR holder and more arbitrage markets are needed. Removing the force settlement right, people are less likely to hold bitEUR.

Quote from: bench on October 01, 2020, 06:32:03 pm

Quote from: abit on September 28, 2020, 09:11:07 pm

Increased limit order taking fee to 0.9 BTS

This is too high, because not every order has 10k BTS. In reality we have markets with more and smaller orders. This means the taker needs always to pay the full taker fee for every dust order on the book.

0.3BTS should be the maximum here.

If the account is LTM the fee is 0.18.

Yes, but I don't think it is fair to charge 20x for a taker on every dust order. The fee structure makes sense for the pool, because the whole pool is traded.
10x increase against the maker order is enough here.

Recent HONEST-Updates:

- 5 independent price feeder
- MCR = 150, instead of 160

Quote from: bench on August 06, 2020, 09:59:02 pm

Quote from: binggo on August 02, 2020, 04:18:14 pm

至于流动性计划，我想社区bench的流动性提案与现在uniswap基本也有一些相通之处，未必不是一个好方案。

yes, this is similar to Uniswap, but what is wrong with Uniswap?

Nothing wrong with Uniswap

Good, I think it is relative simple and now you have also the option to take a long position, because you need only to stake one asset and not two, like in the old version.