Is that really serious? Are you guys using the reserve funds to operate in the market?

Do I need to remember you that the whole point of SmartCoins is not to have someone with KEYs trying to set the price of the market?

I'm again very disappointed with the BTS community and committee for allowing this.

Seems to me like you don't want BTS to succeed... When things start to work out correctly someone comes with some BS to fuck it up.

This and that new fucking 0.1% fee set arbitrary on BitCNY and BitUSD smartcoins are the new middle finger from BTS to the business models that were being built around it.

Please if somebody can please point me out to the proposals for all this.

Is the main issue the market fees or that the commitee wants to create SmartCoins?

Anyways, what I am wondering:

• The worker proposal that should be created soon by the commitee is asking 200.000 BTS a day, which means that there is not much room for other workers. What happens if the sum of all workers is greater than the maximum daily payout?
• What is the maximum amount of SmartCoins to be created this way?
• Why is the proposal dated until 2035-12-31T00:00:00? That is way more than testing market operations
• When will the market fees be removed?

The comittee is in control of roughly 3.6 million BTS which are being held in either comittee-trade or committee-account.
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/account/committee-account
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/account/committee-trade

Questions:

• Is the current balance simply stacking up of transaction fees, or how did this accumulate?
  
• The committee-account is holding short positions. Why?
  
• Where can I see the accumulation of incoming market fees?
  
• How and when will you move forward with bitAsset creation? Backed by worker proposal?
  

Could you please elaborate the reasoning in fees of:
fee price for asset_update_bitasset 5 USD
fee price for asset_update_feed_producers 5 USD
fee price for asset_fund_fee_pool 0.5 USD
fee price for committee_member_update 10 USD
   
Also I am wondering why there is such a difference in:
fee price for committee_member_create 5 USD
fee price for committee_member_update 10 USD

The short term and quickest solution is already presented here, since it requires no blockchain update (change fees, collected fees used to create bitassets).

I would also agree to incentivize the creation of BitAssets, but I think in long-term it should be mostly user driven. Thus I could think of an additional feature when creating a margin position that allows dividends of some sort.

When the user creates a margin position, he can choose his collateral ratio. If the ratio is above some ratio, lets call it incentivize collateral ratio ICR, then additional features becomes visible:
User can lock his position for timespan X, where locking means:

• the position can not be closed
• the positions borrowed amount of bitAssets amount can not be reduced, only increased
• the positions collateral can not be reduced below ICR, only increased
• position becomes unlocked if ratio is less then the unlock incentivize collateral ratio UICR (set by commitee)

If position becomes locked, then the positions collateral in BTS receives Y% from the reserve pool (or some commitee account, eventually filled by fees?) every month the position is locked, where the Y% is only with reference to amount of BTS necessary to achieve ICR. Value Y% depends on the choice X of the user.

For example: ICR is 3.

• User opens position to create 1000 bitUSD backed by 50000 BTS (assume 10 BTS/bitUSD price).
  The collateral ratio of this position is then 5, which is higher than ICR, and user chooses to lock for one month.
• Bitshares says now he will get 0.1% paid every month for all BTS required to achieve ICR.
  To achieve ICR, he would need only 30000 BTS, so the incentive is 30000 * 0.1% = 30.
• The positions collateral will be increased by 30 BTS taken from reserve pool every month. After the two months,
  the position unlocks itself automatically (but is  not closed) and the user has now 50060 BTS as collateral.

This approach would certainly need development on back- and frontend, but could be very interesting for hodlers.

English please

See
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=23800.0
and
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26075.0

I know that it works when the account that created the other account is a Lifetime member (because thats what I did and I can see the referrer).

Not sure what happens when your account is not Lifetime member though, try it with a very cheap non-premium name and see under Membership Stats what it says.

Attempting to perform direct JSON requests to these api nodes fails: https://eu.nodes.bitshares.works/

Code: [Select]

11 eof_exception: End Of File
stringstream
    {}
    th_a  sstream.cpp:109 peek

    {"str":""}
    th_a  json.cpp:478 from_string
For the mean time, I'll be removing these nodes from the HUG REST API (only when performing these json requests). Cheers

That is how actually the expected response, nothing broken there. Do you have an example of a node that behaves differently?