Show Posts

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.


Messages - bench

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23
121
General Discussion / Re: AVG2907 dumping price massivly ?
« on: August 31, 2019, 11:03:02 am »
but i think we need these BSIP to prevent this kind price crash and give DEX some free:

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/194
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/161
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/164

None of your proposed BSIP does solve our problems.

Solutions:
1. Optimize price feeds
2. Increase liquidity
- CEX/DEX arbitrage
- margin position liquidity pool
- Introduce a gab between MCR and margin calls
-- MCR = 1.55 and margin calls only for CR < 1.45

122
I believe they were created prior to market fee sharing and there is no way to reenable those flags
There should be an option to allow the changes of market fees. -> hardfork

123
Bump. Still looking for further price feed publishers & market participants 👍
You should set up a market fee and share it to price feed publisher!
Market fee permission is permanently disabled.
Why ?

124
Bump. Still looking for further price feed publishers & market participants 👍
You should set up a market fee and share it to price feed publisher!

125
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« on: August 28, 2019, 01:00:30 pm »
The low BTS price is more a result of uncertainty and weak hands.

1. Prioritize the right tasks (integrations & user experience)
2. Remove uncertainty -> Whitepaper update -> clear vision and marketing
3. Explain users the value and use cases of BTS by simple documentations and tutorials
4. Integrate new BSIP to increase demand for BTS
5. Attract developers, who want to build on top of BTS

126
I believe this WP will be more productive for this purpose; threads on bitsharestalk are usually pretty quiet.
No, because you are now on the bitAsset research project thread!

127
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:07:18 pm »
Could you explain by what metric this approach has failed?
User base, adoption, trading volume, blockchainactivity, BTS price

Additional DEXbot has brought tons of liquidity.
I did not say every worker was bad, but I see a lot of space left by prioritizing and doing more user orientated work.

Additional DEXbot has brought tons of liquidity.

Nothing against DEXbot they started from 0 and they have now a working product.

Please tell the community what makes you think your criticism is justified

Things which needs improvement:

- Whitepaper

- Integration of decentralized services and hardware
-- PalmPay iOS version
-- bisq integration
-- trustless gateways
-- multi-collateral stable coins
-- shops accepting BTS with map
-- localbitshares/escrow

- new market mechanics
-- margin position liquidity pool
-- improved price feeds

- UI with different flavors
-- beginner, advanced and commercal

- Liquidity
-- bitUSD/DAI trading pair
-- DEXbot
--- CEX/DEX arbitrage
-- OMO

- Marketing

When will investors come up with a vision? There have been 5 years now and I haven't seen any of them provide that.
Things can change and improve! BTS is a new asset class, good things take time.

How would you come from vision to mission in a decentralized ecosystem like ours. Who decides what should be part of the mission, or do you support multiple missions in parallel?
Personal ideas, other proxies, community feedback and worker polls

128
There is no unlimited liquidity.
It was only a thought experiment, like the research. The experiment was chosen to highlight the real elephant is in the room.

This worker proposal could provide new smartcoin setting profiles for multiple theoretical assets & that's valuable information to me and probably others.
If you are unsure how to set parameters, you should think yourself or open a separate topic.

129
There is no unlimited liquidity.
It was only a thought experiment, like the research. The experiment was chosen to highlight the real elephant is in the room.

This worker proposal could provide new smartcoin setting profiles for multiple theoretical assets & that's valuable information to me and probably others.
If you are unsure how to set parameters, you should open a separate topic.

130
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitshares-vision
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:30:23 pm »
At the moment BitShares is not on the right track and bitshares-vision tries to improves this!

Our current model [developer -> wp -> poll -> developer] failed to deliver and
the new model [investor -> vision -> mission -> wp -> polls -> developer -> marketing] is needed to gain transaction again.

131
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Integration of BTS with Wirex
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:19:55 pm »
What you propose is out of scope.
Getting on/off ramps for bitAssets is out of scope?

132
How do you *know* (instead of believe)? E. g. I believe that "MCR=1.01 -> 100% safe" is obviously untrue, because a drop of 2% in BTS price will lead to undercollateralization and destroy the peg.
Because the unlimited liquidity can always increase the CR faster, than the limited price drop!

133
I don't see how this worker would help the value of BTS.
Not only you see no value in this worker, but also the majority of the voters see now value in this worker proposal.

We already know:
MCR = 2.0 -> low liquidity -> unsafe
MCR = 1.01 -> unlimited liquidity -> 100% safe

Our problem is now liquidity and BTS price and not to set the parameter for MCR/MSSR!

My proposal does solve the problem by increasing the liquidity and the demand for BTS:
Margin position liquidity pool - https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182

134
I hope we can firstly see the USD margin call orders disappear.

Real solutions to our real problems:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/189#issuecomment-524290160

135
1. Before we do any optimization in a certain direction, we need to define the system first.

2. cn-vote or other user should not vote for the research worker:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28542.msg334200#msg334200

3. We should not spam this topic with MCR/MSSR discussions.

4. With no problem, I mean no problem compared to other problems.

5. Designers and engineers are needed now, because we already have informatics specialists.

6. Dealing with uncertainty to sell snake oil, doesn't work anymore.

@abit:
Thank you for your support!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23