Would it not be better to get BTS added to these CEX instead of a single bitasset?

I remember someone mentioning there was already a listing bounty for BTS a few weeks ago (I think on Telegram?) but can't find the message.

To add bitCNY or bitUSD the exchange has to connect into Bitshares so adding any other coins (BTS, Zeph etc) would be much more straight forward.

Thanks Xeroc for this, regardless of the proposal itself it is really positive to see these things being brought forward / proposed as marketing is absolutely critical to taking BTS to the next level.

I have gone through the documents and was not blown away. I do not feel the fee is particularly high but I also don't think we will get much out of it.

My suggestion is we utilise our different expertise to prepare a Request for Proposal (RfP) document outlining what exactly we want and are looking for. A number of us could work on it as a shared Google document and we could pin down as a community exactly what we are looking for. A reasonable budget could be agreed and then a worker raise including some allowance for a proposal committee to review submissions and select the successful firm.

I don't have a background in marketing but I do work on a lot of large tenders / design competitions so have some ideas on how this could be done & structured to get best possible results. I'd be happy to work on the document with others but we'd need to crowbar some time out of people like clockwork with more of a marketing background.

Hi Xeroc, yep sorry BBF I believe DL was going to raise it as a potential worker to the BBF as per his earlier post here and gauge it's likeliness to pass.

The worker would need to cover the listing fee and then some allowance for people on the Bitshares side assisting technically with the integration - I think DL is much clearer on the quantum of effort involved in that side of things (and who can do it) than me.

Additionally it would be better for the worker to sit under someone more established / trusted in the community with a track record on some workers. I'm a trustworthy guy (honest!) but obviously nobody has seen me do much for Bitshares yet so I wouldn't expect the proxies to sign over X BTC worth of funds to me.

As highlighted in some recent discussions there is an oddity on bitUSD, bitCNY and similar that the "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" and override transfers option is active.

Bitshares is decentralised and we are pushing these coins forward as trustless so I propose these permissions are turned off.

I wanted to raise it here so we can discuss:

• What are the benefits of the permissions remaining on?
• Do these outweigh the negatives of it remaining on?
• If we turn it off how is that decided and done? 

In my view the function would (/should) never be used and leaving it on significantly undermines the fundamental premise of them as decentralised / trustless stable coins.

I think the only reason to leave them on would be if there was a significant and clearly defined regulatory or legal advantage...and even then I think I would take some convincing but I welcome views from others

Another update folks!

The 4th invitation slot goes to MichaelX who will be joining us in Athens.

I think this will be a fairly good mix after all.

a committee member
a major proxy
the core team coordinator
and the voted spokesperson

I can confidently say we'll all do our best to represent BitShares and spread the word as much as we possibly can while there.

Strong group! Great job with this Alex and I'm sure you guys will do a great job of representing bitshares.

Thanks DL, really appreciated.

Note I'm also quite far along in discussions with Hotbit and  am just getting the draft package details.

Gemeni are not interested (competing stable coin so not that surprising).

Bitbay are not interested in stable coins at the minute but I'm discussing listing BTS with them.

Cheers Abit will do.

Whatever happens with the bounty discussion I'd love to see us listing bitCNY and bitUSD on LATOKEN. People could sell USDT for bitUSD...I know what I'd rather have 

On the bounty side - as long as it's the same rule for everyone then it's a level playing field so I can't really complain. I'm speaking to a few about 3+ pairs so let's see, I think moving above that would need a few months of proven liquidity on the exchange so let's get them up there first

Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.

Should this be turned off?

I noticed a quite a few posts highting that a new stable coin had this feature and was therefore a sign it is not a real cryptocurrency.

I can imagine cases where it might be desirable to transfer bitUSD back but should it really be a technical option? It feels like it goes against the whole idea of the DEX.