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 - chigbolu

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
91
... the gateway assets which are included in the ordering mining will beforced to pay part of the market fee to system before BTS 4.0 launching as a must for being listed... This term forced to pay is wrong to use in a blockchain system like BTS, you can't and should not force anyone to pay for anything, it should be voluntary, besides none of the exchanges has agitated or asked for this new MM system they were participating because their customers stood to gain from it, not even them so why force them and give them stringent conditions.

92
General Discussion / Re: MARKET FEE SHARING AND BSIP 86
« on: May 28, 2020, 02:25:35 am »
perhaps it will be better to set 2 independent parameters for BSIP86, one global parameter which is controlled by committee, the other is a asset parameter which is controlled by asset owners, committee can maintain the global parameter conservatively, in some scenario asset owner can set the asset parameter, and the sum of the 2 is the final "market fee sharing rate", this provide the possibility that different UIA own different market fee sharing rate if scenario request.
Market fee sharing is a good idea, however I think it should be done on an individual basis, for example a user trading a specific asset, say GATEWAY.BTC can get a share of the market fees from this asset as his reward, the asset owner can specify a certain condition for the user to get this reward, conditions like; must be LTM, user must trade above 1BTC or user must have up to 10BTC deposit monthly, etc. It should not be a forced tax, however should this be implemented as is, asset owners should be given the complete freedom to opt in or not i.e under update asset> charge market fees> share market fee to network> default 0%> adjust to max 100%, in this way asset owners still have full autonomy and can still contribute to the network if they wish to.... Some asset owners can even decide to be generous and set market fee sharing to 100%

93
If the Chinese community already owns majority of the committee then nothing can be done cause it means they will make all the decisions... No amount of shouting can change their minds...

94
Destruction proposal is still in poll, it has not begun yet, meanwhile Committee account is owned by Committee of 11 members who represent the community, I think we should have even more money in that account

95
General Discussion / MARKET FEE SHARING AND BSIP 86
« on: May 26, 2020, 05:54:21 am »
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.

96
General Discussion / Re: Info about scamcoins?
« on: May 18, 2020, 03:27:16 pm »
have set white list for GDEX.BTC and GDEX.USDT.

if necessary will also set white list for GDEX.ETH and GDEX.EOS.
It will be nice if the HONEST assets can be whitelisted however this is commendable

97
General Discussion / Re: ANN: HONEST Market Pegged Assets
« on: May 18, 2020, 03:24:15 pm »
The GDEX.BTC/HONEST.BTC market is currently not functional thanks to the new whitelisting rules

98
General Discussion / Re: [Committee] Fee schedule overhaul
« on: May 16, 2020, 12:02:43 pm »
Don't agree this Proposal.

Everyone can issue and trade shitcoin in ETH, if ETH will need to increase the fee to forbid this behaviour´╝č

BTS just provides the service for everyone, it is equal for everyone, even the coin is a scamcoins.

This Proposal just build a more highter wall to forbid the organization or business come into BTS system, just like BSIP86.


If a busineed need to spend creation fee 500$/5000$/25000$ for long/4-char/3-char asset in BTS, sorry about that, we have more choice in other block chain.
That's it, whoever is scamming now will do it in a bigger way now cos it's now even more expensive to create tokens, it's worrisome

99
General Discussion / Re: ANN: HONEST Market Pegged Assets
« on: May 12, 2020, 02:19:19 pm »
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%

100
General Discussion / BTS TA FOR 12TH MAY 2020
« on: May 12, 2020, 09:35:28 am »
Currently BTS price is close to 0.018USD which is currently acting as a critical support, recall from last month it was a resistance level as at this time. Bitshares has traded between 0.016 to 0.022USD within that time a rough 37% gain if u had caught both positions. So far BTS appears to be in a downtrend channel on the daily and 4H charts however it is testing the 0.017-0.018USD support as mentioned earlier, with current resistance at 0.0215USD level, a failure to hold support may lead to a crash to the 0.013USD a main support line when Bitcoin crashed to 3000USD in March, once again BTS is still heavily dependent on bitcoin's performance; this shows in the fact that BTS has devalued heavily against the King of coins, however Bitshares is planning a new release in June called BTS4.0 with massive new features like P2P lending and new improved upgrades to Bitshares governance this may lead to price increase.
LEVELS TO WATCH THIS MONTH
SUPPORT LEVELS: 0.0175, 0.015, 0.013
RESISTANCE LEVELS: 0.0195, 0.022, 0.03

101
General Discussion / Re: Info about scamcoins?
« on: May 10, 2020, 09:23:49 am »
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

102
Hi everybody

I've got some BTS in a exchange wallet which I'm trying to send to my Bitshare.org wallet.

I see when I click on the deposit option in my Bitshares account it brings up a QR code for the deposit. However, I don't see any "long string address" for the deposit (only the QR code).

When I look on the exchange site it seems to want this "long string address" in order to make the withdrawal. It doesn't seem to have any option to enter this via QR code i.e. only the "long string address" method.

I should just mention that I'm using a PC. Not a mobile so I can't scan the QR code with the camera.

I'd be grateful for any help that anyone might be able to offer.

tia

Bear
If u want to make a deposit to ur bitshares wallet u only need to send the money using the account name you registered with as your deposit address on the exchange from where you are withdrawing, u can also attach a memo, but that is optional since it's your account

103
General Discussion / Re: ANN: VNC-7 DEBT SECURITY TOKEN
« on: May 01, 2020, 07:37:44 am »
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...

104
General Discussion / Re: [Committee] Fee schedule overhaul
« on: May 01, 2020, 12:46:35 am »
Recently there are some victims tricked into buying "fake" assets E.G. WAZIRX and ZILLIQA on chain. There was a discussion among the committee members, we think it may be a good idea to raise asset creation fee, since that fee is like listing fee in centralized exchanges, but is way too cheap in comparison.

Current fees are (in US $):
Code: [Select]
    "asset_create": {
        "long_symbol": 50,
        "symbol4": 2000,
        "symbol3": 8000,
        "price_per_kbyte": 0.01,
    },
In other words, 50$ to list a new token.

Note: a half of asset creation fee will be put into the fee pool of new created asset and can be redeemed soon after the creation, 80% of the remaining 50% (aka 40% of total) fee will go to the referral system, which means it only costs a LTM account 10% of the listed amounts to create new assets.

On the other hand, if the fee is too high, it may hinder legit business e.g. gateways.

I propose that we increase the long/4-char/3-char asset creation fee set to 500$/5000$/25000$.

Please discuss.
Instead of that why not designated asset markers that show fake assets from real ones, increasing the fee for asset creation will discourage legit gateways and small bitshares holders from creating their own assets. Asset marking has been done before, for example with openlegder and cryptobridge assets, this time it can be applied as default so that people will know the assets are fake, legit gateways and asset owners are then verified, that's the best solution.

105
General Discussion / Re: ANN: VNC-7 DEBT SECURITY TOKEN
« on: April 26, 2020, 11:24:50 pm »
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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11