Market fee sharing as described by BSIP86 involves giving a part of the income from the market fees of any asset to the network, it's meant to improve the profitable of BTS as a core token, since the accumulated fees are presumably used by the committee to buy back/burn BTS from the market. Market fees sharing is not new to BTS, infact it has been existing since inception starting with the 80% cashbacks on all transactions for LTMs, it is also already implemented on major bitassets and stands at 0.1% currently, these fees go to committee account, however out of this 0.08% goes to LTM referral accounts leaving a paltry sum as actual income on these assets (bitUSD, CNY,,etc), another asset GDEX.BTC also uses this referral reward pattern but only gives out 20% of it's fees instead of 80% as done in the bitassets, XBTSX uses the STH staking pattern to reward holders with their market fee income, other markets may have their rewarding system as well too, for example the market maker contest is another form of market fee sharing. BSIP86 if implemented will make all DEX asset owners to also reward the network (committee account) via market fee sharing which will either lead to an increase in the percentage charge (currently 0.1% for most assets) or a decrease in revenue for the asset owners (mostly bridge exchanges), that being said let us see the losers and gainers of this new system.
Firstly the losers, these are the parties that stand to lose a lot from the BSIP86: they include bridge exchanges and ordinary DEX users. Bridges would lose 50% of their revenue ( by default market fee sharing is set to 50%), considering the low trade volumes on the DEX and current low user base, add that to monthly running costs, it will only be a matter of time before the remaining exchanges pack up or jump ship, this will cause a ripple effect on the ordinary BTS users who still patronize these exchanges, firstly they will have to pay more to use the services of the BTS DEX, secondly they stand a risk of losing the value of their bridge assets should any of the remaining exchanges bail out, thirdly the new DEX economy model reward system may not be enough to cover for the expenses made on the DEX, add all these risks and you have a lot of discouraged retail traders leaving the chain for greener pastures.
This takes us to the gainers; they include the Whales, LTMs, and Committee account. The Whales are big stakeholders, who benefit from the BTS economic model, they have a huge stake in BTS including huge collateral positions and strong voting power, they will also gain a lot if BTS appreciates in price and through juicy incentives, the new market fee sharing will have no effect on them as they do not involve themselves in day to day trading activities, plus they also decide who makes the rules via their voting stake so this ensures things will always be in their favour, next is the LTMs who get 80% cashbacks on their fees including other juicy incentives, they won't be affected since their expenses are lesser than that of ordinary users, finally we have the committee account that stands to gain 50% of the revenue from all assets on the DEX that charge market fees. BSIP86 may lead to a capitalist type of system where the chain is run for profit, this may be good in the short term, especially for the gainers, however in the long run it could also be the death of BTS as we know it since BTS was originally meant to be used as a DAC meant for the gains of all stakeholders and not just for profit of a few elite members. Finally a simple solution to BSIP86 could be to remove the market fee referral reward on all bitassets, this will automatically increase the amount committee account earns from it's assets (LTMs already have so many other benefits) there will thus be enough for development of the BTS network another option would be to reduce LTM cashbacks to 50% or less.

The GDEX.BTC/HONEST.BTC market is currently not functional thanks to the new whitelisting rules

In consultation with the HONEST MPA development group, we've made changes to asset options to discourage use of Forced Settlement for trivial gains.   This change should allow borrowers the opportunity to take a debt position, sell short, and be briefly in the red without risk.
 

MPA ADMIN ASSET OPTIONS UPDATE

on all HONEST MPA's

FSO (offset) is 2%
FSD (delay) is 60 minutes


Theory:

Borrower seeks to issue HONEST MPA to himself at RED and sell short with intent to buy back at GREEN.   Even though the borrower is correct to short the market in the long run; there is a brief moment of loss at BLUE where he can be attacked by Force Settlement mechanics.   2% FSO should protect the nascent call position from this market exploit, allowing for the borrower to correctly bet against the market in the long run; thereby increasing monetary supply.

Prior to this change FSO was 0%.  FSD was 60 minutes for most of the HONEST MPA's; a few were set to 240.  All FSD's have now been updated to 60. 

While we are generally very hesitant to make changes to asset mechanics; preferring monetary policy stability wherever possible:  There has been ongoing community call to make this change, with poll sentiment of over 80% calling for FSO>0.   

Poll results from telegram groups:

From the poll result it should be 1%

recently it is frequently reported that some cheaters ask the fooled to deposit BTC in GDEX and then buy the scam token with GDEX.BTC.

seems mainly happened in Russia?

GDEX are considering to take measures like whitelist for this to protect the interest of BTS users.

however we have little info about the scamcoins, hope the community can provide relevant info.

BSVBEAR just scammed someone of over 600GDEX.USDT

https://bts.ai/market/GDEX.USDT_BSVBEAR

Sadly my fundraising venture has failed woefully, it's safe to say bitshares isn't the place for charity, however the tokens are still on the order books...
Here are the attributes of my token
LIMITED SUPPLY: only 1,000,000
Redeemable for it's equivalent amount in Naira
Guaranteed rise in value, via monthly buy backs
Custom token made only for my account
Token can no longer be updated as ownership has been transferred to null-account
Meant to be used as a debt security...

I have now adjusted the parameters for the asset, I have also transfered ownership to null-account in order to increase the authenticity of the asset, I have also set up an order book.
https://bts.ai/market/VNC7DST_BTS

Now that Openledger has come clean to say they are no longer in service it is now time for Bitshares as an entity to explore other ways of bringing liquidity to the DEX especially for the remaining bridges, Openledgers reasons for closing is that they could no longer meet with the demands of their DEX projects for the customers and due to the current cryptocurrency climate in their host country they had to close shop. This means that at a point they were no longer making money from their investment,this is an exchange that has been existing since the beginning of bitshares which is pretty bad. This also means that the remaining bridges might probably close shop too if the situation continues.
This is why Bitshares as a whole must have some sort of frame work or regulation to forestall a repeat of such occurences in the future, a lack of change in approach may lead to loss of confidence in bitshares by DEX users and newbies who are considering a venture in bitshares and ultimately the death of bitshares DEX structure, there has to be a fail proof way of safeguarding the assets of DEX users, such that the closure of a bridge would not have much impact on the users afterall it is they who provide liquidity on the DEX. The Bitshares token is safe, however, what good is it if it can not deliver on its promise of decentralised trading for all crypto-asset class (Bitcoin and the others).
Bitshares has the solution to this problem already, yes there is already a form of exchange on the DEX that does not rely on  bridge exchanges, a trustless bridge in the form of Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLC), where users use smart contracts to validate asset exchange without a third party, we also have many gateway services available.
The use of HTLC introduces another form of bridge exchange known as teller exchanges, these exchanges will no longer be custodians of users funds, but will act as an exchange terminal for the bitshares network helping users to have access to the DEX trading functionality without being worried of losing their funds.
How can this be achieved, firstly the bitshares network can create a pseudo asset, a form of security token or semi-fungible asset using the laid down parameters available on the network, say for example Bit.BTC (Must be UIA not a smart asset) which can be traded on the DEX, after issue, the asset ownership would be transfered to null-account so that no one else has control of it, and then the issued coins would be sold for BTS by the bitshares committee through an account set up for this (Current bridge exchanges may be given first right of purchase). This account would be the first seller and will sell the coins in batches according to the market demands and at exactly or almost thesame price as bitcoin, as it is committee owned it is immutable and trust will be guaranteed. Now this is where the tellers come in; holders of the psuedo asset can then post trades on their sites where they are matched with other users who are in need of the asset on the DEX (current bridge exchanges can also perform this service), another way is the use of gateways like blocktrade, atomicpay, gatehub, etc. that will exchange the asset 1:1 for bitcoin at a prescribed fee supposing the user doesnt want to use the HTLC teller method.
Using this pattern future bridge exchanges would no longer need to create their own assets but instead would be given first rights of purchase and special previleges to be able to sell and exchange the assets ( bitcoin for example) to users at reasonable costs. It also makes every user a potential exchange.