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 - JohnR

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Proxy] kimchi-king - Journal
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:53:16 pm »
Kevin, I share this concern.

I have decided to remove my support for the Committee Controlled Open Market Operations WP. Even though the funds are used to support the bitCNY and bitUSD markets I feel they absorb way too much of the daily BTS funding.

I fear that this WP will hamper further funding of WPs designed to benefit the community.

Additionally, I'm concerned of a potential conflict of interest with the new SPRING Fund managed by bitcrab, but it's still too early to say for sure just yet. It just seems like this new SPRING Fund is being indirectly supported by the RP through the Open Market Operations WP. The Open Market WP adds buying pressure and stability to the bitCNY market then the SPRING Fund profits from that buying pressure.

Am I crazy or does this make any sense?

If you have a different point of view then please share it with me.

I do remember when the committee open market proposal came up for election and was passed without a lot of discussion or conceptual support.  I appreciate liquidity on bitUSD/CNY as much as the next guy but I also wonder at what cost this comes.

People I respect do support this operation; including presently on the committee.  Due to that I generically support this operation's continued existence but think it's critical to get some more transparency / discussion from the folks calling the shots here.  Have you every spoken with bitcrab?

As an otherwise well-rounded individual, I do not know a ton about programming.  But I am immediately drawn to this phrase in OP

   - instead of developing/fixing existing React based UI, did complete from scratch build of new library for BitShares under the Vue Framework from original

It was not a fork, it was a fresh new Framework and library to be used by other developers, given to the blockchain as open-source

This is not just a building app on existing long-lasting tools but enabling new framework to utilize bitshares and enable more developers to join the eco-system. If nothing, it should be forked to BitShares, to properly advertise Vue support we have for our technology.


This is an excellent example of the value proposition of free (open) software.  Permission-less creativity.  BitShares deserves constant updates on the back-end technology front.  I also believe BTS does not need a UI makeover as much as it needs more options.  The fact that most service providers / gateways on BitShares use a clone of the original UI shows the lack of creativity that can set in when we, as a community, don't voice our intents to keep things fresh.

These mock-ups look very nice I must admit - although the aesthetics are up to the individual user.  What I can say for sure is that mobile usage is critical.  For myself, I would not be that interested in entering limit orders on a mobile device.  That being said I can see mobile is many people's only interaction with the DEX.  And I use Trusty's android wallet regularly - so I can vouch for the team's product delivery.  I look forward to this proposal's success and a prosperous partnership between BTS and the Trusty team.

I'm glad to see all the community engagement regarding this project.  Clearly there are a lot of hardworking and intelligent people on this platform and it's starting to show with the new blood coming to worker proposals.  I agree we do have a great opportunity here to create a positive feedback loop.  Valuable and productive workers --> network expansion to greater audience --> fine tuning fee structure and earning more for community treasury --> even more productive workers.

I look forward to seeing this particular proposal live on chain and supported.  Not to mention Digital Lucifer getting the recognition and validation for all of his hard work.

This infrastructure production has been in the works for a few months now and DL has put in a lot of work getting things just right.  All while operating in a transparent manner and soliciting feedback from community and node admins along the way.

I see this as a very potent upgrade/addition to the BitShares network that will support the continued expansion of the DAC into more territories and users.  Investment in infrastructure aids every other initiative we discuss here.  I have full confidence in DL's ability to manage this architecture in the most professional manner.

To a more resilient distributed network and BitShares' future prosperity.

General Discussion / Re: Internalizing the Hero
« on: July 22, 2018, 03:11:19 am »
I agree with Digital Lucifer here.  It seems like there were some wires crossed and appropriate conversation/formal requests were not made.  I think both sides have some information to share with the community on the matter.  There are many critical projects coming to release/launch as we speak and no one should shy away from controversy on any matter whatsoever.

I will say from a legal perspective, the analysis for Hero as security (at least in the USA) is not cut-and-dry.  We should, of course, err on the side of caution with these things and anything pertaining to the formal association with BitShares formal executive committee.  We can make an articulate and persuasive argument for Hero as not a security but then again depending on the jurisdiction, regulators may simply reach the conclusion they wish.

I think on this matter, both sides can shed some light on their position.  I look forward to hearing Xeroc's opinion as well.  Few are as long veterans on these matters as Stan and Fabian.

I am sure the other committee members, proxies, and large stakeholders who have not voiced an opinion already are beyond busy carrying out their efforts for the general welfare of the blockchain and all constituents. 

That being said I do sincerely hope to engage more people in an honest discussion about the matters discussed already in this thread as well as my continued earnest candidacy for committee membership.

We are entering a phase of legitimacy for distributed enterprise (including BitShares) and I am encouraged by the professionalism being displayed by key community members already.  And I know the future holds more promise of the same.


As far as trading fees are concerned. Network fees for trading are WAY too low. Market fees (on gateway assets as well as bitAssets) are too high.

I agree with this completely.  The main point I'm trying to get across is that bts:bitUSD & bts:bitCNY are by FAR the most actively traded pairs.  If we want to a have an impact we should focus on variable/marginal fees there.  Since there is already a market fee, already within committee (community) control it seems intuitive to me to start there.  Note the network fee is a flat fee, and since the overwhelming majority of exchange trading pairs have low order creation I'm not sure it will have a huge impact.  Clockwork has a lot of experience here (not to mention put a lot of energy/thought into the matter) so I do support raising network fees while we consider how best to use bitasset market fees.  I can understand not wanting to formally apply some of the current market fee to network integrity (reserve pool).  I'm indifferent between that and simply raising network fees/lowering bitasset fees. 

I do not want to subsidize private gateways either.  I don't immediately see how charging low network fees is bailing out private gateways.  They are basically CEXs leveraging the BTS infrastructure.  In that sense I do see your point - although 'free-riding' is probably the more accurate term.  Probably a longer conversation about how we can better align the incentives there.

One cool thing about increasing the network's cut on transaction fees is .... wait for it ... the users are not affected. They pay 100% anyways. The only ones impacted are basically
* openledger, who claimed that referral fees are not their business
* cryptobridge, who seems to make money by listing fees and trading
* other frontends that may come with their own assets just like OL and CB
* bitshares europe, which sofar only has referral fees as income (as it's owner, I would rather see BitShares grow than hold back rational business decisions out of pure and stupid greed)

I am glad we all seem to agree on this.  A more equitable split between the network and the referrer will make all of our efforts more effective.

Xeroc I think 50/50 makes sense as a starting point.  That would more than double the income from network fees and referrers still retain a strong incentive to splash their ref links and bring on new users.

Your point of concern about trading fees I think is on everyone's mind here.  That's why I suggest leveraging some of the current asset variable fee towards maintaining the network.  I understand the original intent of the asset fee was to increase liquidity on those two asset in a neutral way, managed by committee.  That's a good objective.  But is it worth 10x the capital flow than accrues to the network?  Put more simply: is committee offered liquidity on two bitassets worth ten times more than all witness and worker proposal pay which power the entire platform?  To me it is clearly not worth the discrepancy.

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?


The equivalent result could be had by apportioning some of the 0.1% variable fee from committee trading to reserve pool.  I agree that network fees are very low.  At the same time I would like to see trading across many assets and not concentrated in a few UIA gateways.  My concern is crowding out some of the more obscure/low volume tokens when we are already charging more than 10x the network fee on a couple trading pairs.  Does that make sense?

If you disagree, or think that's too complex I understand.  It sits a little strange with me to debate raising network fees when net fees are already rather high on our most prized trading pairs.

Regarding 2, yes I know some accounts have a lot at stake there so I would like to see a community discussion.

I would like to build on the solid research already published by Clockwork ( and Abit (

I was interested with Clockwork’s observation that the BitShares reserve pool is running at a chronic deficit.  So far as the community desires fiscal balance and sustainability, it’s clear we must decrease expenses (witness/worker proposals) or increase income (revenue from fees).  Decreasing expenses significantly is short-sighted because BitShares has a lot of growth ahead and doing so would be akin to cutting the legs from under ourselves.  So naturally we should have a conversation about increasing network operations and or the fees associated with those operations.

I am against raising networks across the board before considering how the bitUSD/CNY variable fee can be used to support the health of the network (witness/worker proposals).  As shown below, fees are already rather high, even by centralized exchange standards.  For some of the more popular trading pairs, users face fees over 0.3% in total.  With only a small fraction of that actually going to support the core infrastructure of the platform.

Fees in context:
Hypothetical fees incurred on 100 bitUSD round-trip trade for BTC and back         
              BTS Network Fee  bitUSD Variable Fee     Private Gateway Fee
OpenLedger   0.01156           $0.10                  $0.20
GDEX            0.01156           $0.10                  $0.10
RuDex           0.01156           $0.10                  $0.05

The private gateway fees are off the table for this discussion.  What is immediately noticeable is how much greater the bitUSD variable fee is than the network fee.  Of course, the difference is less on smaller orders and greater on larger orders.  Still, considering bitUSD/CNY have shown robust trading activity this is a data point that the market can bear significantly higher fees than the flat network fee.

When the bitUSD/bitCNY variable fees were originally introduced I was against them.  Notwithstanding the results of the liquidity market operations (the explicit intention of the additional fee) I have come around to realize a much bigger point.  The demand for trading bitUSD has proven rather inelastic with respect to the transaction fees. 

Elasticity is a short-hand economics term meaning how much market participants will alter their behavior in response to a given change.  E.g. alcohol and cigarette taxes are considered the most efficient taxes because they do not alter behavior significantly – people who smoke will likely continue to smoke whether the cost of a pack amounts to two USD or three.  The upshot here is that bitUSD is a unique token and the market demand for trading remains robust despite the increased fee.  If we want to increase the reserve pool, we should consider tapping some of the current fees levied on bitUSD/CNY or increasing network fees slightly on those assets alone.

A second observation is the 20/80% referral vesting mechanism.  Even a strong increase in network activity/revenue will have a muted effect so long as only 1/5 of the revenues are actually returning to the reserve pool.  I understand the original reasoning for such lucrative referral structures.  I also think it’s worth having a discussion whether this structure has yielded the results the community feels is worthy of such a high price to pay.  This is the most immediate way to increase the force multiplier of network activity.  At the same time I recognize this may be a sensitive topic because people may have planned according to this current 20/80 program.

So my calls for discussion are:
1) What do you think of augmenting the fee structure on bitCNY/USD to increase the flow to the reserve pool from the trading of those assets? 
2) What do you think of slightly modifying the ratio between referrer vesting and reserve pool income?

Thank you abit.  That means a great deal coming from such a public and respected individual as yourself.

Already good feedback provided above.

I express my support for this solid work done so far by the BBF and look to support in the future.

Honored to have your feedback and support xeroc, clockwork, and sschiessl

I appreciate the important role that both proxies and the committee play in the BTS ecosystem.  Having many proxies representing diverse factions of holders increases the decentralization of power as well as improving voting participation and efficiency.  I see the logic in recommending to become a proxy.  As you know, the proxies interaction with the governance protocol is only affirmative at this time.  Proxy can add their vote or remove their vote if they already support.  If the proxy had more ability to express both affirmative and negative votes I would reconsider campaigning as a proxy.

I prefer an opportunity to make a direct contribution on technical governance.  Rolling up the sleeves to measure and modify efficient fee structures on DEX is the kind of nerdy activity I am looking for.  I will study the economic state of the native DEX and share all conclusions and recommendations   

I do not mind saying that I have a strong preference for smartcoins and believe fees should encourage their prosperity and fecundity.  I look forward to joining your discussions about details like network fees.  And I am optimistic about the future of BitShares and look forward to working the great team of decentralized and talented people in this governance community.

Fav, a valuable opinion at that.  Thank you for the perspective.

Just a quick reality check: how do you imagine the work in committee and what tasks do you think they need to perform?


I will be completely honest with you.  I am not the most experienced person around the BitShares blockchain.  I was not around for AngelShares or the genesis block.  As I said in the OP, I have been learning since I joined BitShares last summer.  So when I imagine work on the Committee, I imagine just that: a lot of work learning from the more senior members.

I am aware that this is not paid position. I also am aware that I know little about committee work from the backend/blockchain side.  I believe that I do have knowledge to help people such as Clockwork and all of the Committee members to improve stability of the blockchain, fees, and reserve pool.  Joining the Committee is not just a position; to me it is about being a good steward for the blockchain on behalf of the people who use it everyday.

I am just a humble guy from Michigan.  But I found some great people in this community.  I will do whatever is asked of me in order to contribute value to this community.

If you would like to speak more in-depth about a specific concrete issue (e.g. network fees on MPAs) I would be happy to do that in another thread.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5