工资月结，效果不好下个月就可以终止合同，工资通过抵押bts获得，使低迷的市场没有砸盘的隐患，随着bts价格的慢慢复苏上涨，才能解锁BTS用来支付余下的工资，这样才能将做事团队和BTS的价值深刻捆绑，总之这开创了worker改革的新先河！而且国内团队的性价比无疑是最高的！

bitcny的贬值大家都以为主要原因是锁了喂价，我认为主要原因是大家觉得比特股越来越垃圾越来越看不到希望，给出的预期就是没有未来，如果大家觉得比特股好，在这么低价位外盘也不会出现大量卖出换仓导致cny过度贬值的事情，每天那么多worker支出工资支出，系统又没啥收入，每天都处在大量亏损状态，如果作为一家公司，这家公司如此状况，员工早就人心惶惶，离职的离职了！现在处于熊市，你搞什么千万深度奖励计划有个卵用，活动搞完资金花了，韭菜毛都不会有还是会选择大交易所，没得比的！告诉你现在该做的就是停掉所有worker支出，想办法回购比特股，再熊市能回购锁几亿是几亿，要给人幻想，给人好的预期，比特股每天流通会越来越少，以后价格会随着流通减少而上涨，别人就会适当进来购买，久而久之玩的人多了，口碑好了，再来引导比特股内盘，有了粉丝就有了深度有了手续费有了盈利！请各位理事会不要本末倒置，要知道什么是重点，什么事情要先做！committee-cnytrade这个账户可以启动了，刚好又有最低喂价做保护，不要害怕不能怂，现在不加大回购，等到什么时候，反正bitcny已经贬值这么多了，暂时贬值20%又何妨！再说加大回购之后贬不贬值还未知！
比特股爱好者

Quote from: Thul3 on October 14, 2019, 09:06:57 pm

Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.

As long as all the gateways are operational, I think the arbitrage bots will balance the markets.

How to measure the performance of gateways is a bit hard though.

Quote from: tbone on October 14, 2019, 08:50:58 pm

Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm

The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC

### not yet qualified gateway assets:
GDEX.BTC
GDEX.USDT
blockchained.X

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

For each market, 80% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and 20% of total reward will go to BTS sellers.

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 24,000 BTS * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 6,000 BTS * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward


## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet (https://testnet.bitshares.eu/) will be launched soon. Details will follow.

Looks good. It makes a lot of sense to reward orders on the books (as close as possible to the action) as opposed to simply rewarding trading volume (which doesn't necessarily provide any value, i.e. it can be gamed). Also, I like that you propose to weight the rewards 4:1 toward the bid side instead of 1:1, especially since we are still not in a bull market.

The only criticism I have right now is that the distance factor can possibly be somewhat gamed.

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.

Yes, ideally it would get eaten. But you really have no idea if it will or not. And even if it does, maybe then they will put up another small order. I'm just saying... under the current proposal, one could earn rewards by adding liquidity almost entirely to the sell side, for example. Yes, 4:1 ratio provides more incentive to add liquidity to the buy side (which I like), but that may not be enough to overcome bear market forces. So I'm proposing a way to ensure a little more balance. AT LEAST require there to be SOMEONE to be providing opposing liquidity, even if it's not the same MM. If I remember correctly, there were similar liquidity programs on traditional exchanges (equities, etc) that required EACH market maker to be on BOTH sides in order to qualify for rewards.

Quote from: abit on October 13, 2019, 09:43:22 pm

The DEX needs liquidity.
Market makers who leave orders on the market provide liquidity.
The contest is to incentivize market makers, consequentially attract traders and bring volume to the DEX.

## Rewards
Up to 60,000 BTS every day. Funding by the committee.

## Begin/End Date
To be decided.

## Markets
BTS / [gateways].BTC
BTS / [gateways].USDT
(30,000 BTS each)

## Gateways
Gateways who have interest in participating in the contest please reply to this thread.
Every gateway needs to prove that its gateway assets are fully backed by real assets, like https://audit.bitspark.io/

(The lists below will be updated from time to time as the contest progresses)

### qualified gateway asset(s):
SPARKDEX.BTC

### not yet qualified gateway assets:
GDEX.BTC
GDEX.USDT
blockchained.X

## Rules

### Brief
Market makers place orders onto the order book.
The bigger the orders and
the closer the orders to the opposite side of the order book and
the longer the orders lasting on the order book,
the more rewards the owner of the orders will earn.

### Details

For each market, 80% of total reward will go to BTS buyers and 20% of total reward will go to BTS sellers.

After each block is produced, a snapshot of the order book will be captured. Every order on the markets will be scored.

The orders whose size is smaller than 100 BTS will be ignored when calculating.
Get the lowest ask price (LAP) and highest bid price (HBP) of the remaining order book.
For bids (orders buying BTS), order_distance = (LAP - order_price) / LAP
For asks (orders selling BTS), order_distance = (order_price - HBP) / order_price

Group 1: orders whose order_distance is within [0%, 1%] will share up to 53% of total reward;
Group 2: orders whose order_distance is within (1%, 2%] will share up to 25% of total reward;
Group 3: orders whose order_distance is within (2%, 3%] will share up to 12% of total reward;
Group 4: orders whose order_distance is within (3%, 5%] will share up to 6% of total reward;
Group 5: orders whose order_distance is within (5%, 7%] will share up to 3% of total reward;
Group 6: orders whose order_distance is within (7%, 10%] will share up to 1% of total reward.

For each group, group_score = group_reward_percent * min(1, total_order_size / 1,000,000 BTS).

For each order within a group,
order_weight = order_size * ( 1 + (group_upper_bound - order_distance) / (group_upper_bound - group_lower_bound) )
order_score = group_score * order_weight / sum(order_weight)

For each day,
for each market group, specifically, BTS / [gateways].BTC or BTS / [gateways].USDT,
daily_bids_reward = 24,000 BTS * sum(bids_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day
daily_asks_reward = 6,000 BTS * sum(asks_group_score) / total_blocks_produced_in_that_day

For traders,
account_bids_reward = daily_bids_reward * sum(bids_order_score) / sum(bids_group_score)
account_asks_reward = daily_asks_reward * sum(asks_order_score) / sum(asks_group_score)
account_daily_reward = account_bids_reward + account_asks_reward


## Testnet Simulation

A simulation of the contest on the public testnet (https://testnet.bitshares.eu/) will be launched soon. Details will follow.

Looks good. It makes a lot of sense to reward orders on the books (as close as possible to the action) as opposed to simply rewarding trading volume (which doesn't necessarily provide any value, i.e. it can be gamed). Also, I like that you propose to weight the rewards 4:1 toward the bid side instead of 1:1, especially since we are still not in a bull market.

The only criticism I have right now is that the distance factor can possibly be somewhat gamed.

For illustration purposes, let's say the market currently has a wide spread. And now the MM rewards program starts. Then a MM places a sizable sell order just below the best ask, and then also places a very small order on the bid side within 1% of his large order on the ask. Should he get full credit for the large order on the ask within 1% of the best bid? Personally, i think the order should have to be within 1% of equivalent liquidity on the opposite side. Or maybe not equivalent...but perhaps based on the 4:1 ratio. So an order on the ask would be compared (distance-wise) to 4x liquidity on the bid (some of it may be within 1%, some within 2%, etc). Likewise, orders on the bid would be compared distance-wise to 0.25x liquidity on the ask. See what i mean?

The small buy order would get quickly eaten as there will be many participants and only a few trading pairs.