Quote from: tonyk2 on December 07, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
My bad probably, but I understood it to mean that 'get what you asked for' market rules destroy some of the user issued asset and this is effectively a 'dividend' for the issuer. Trying to convert such destroyed UIA to the BTS equivalent is a hard to do and am not sure necessary. And we are already collecting the bitAssets( or BTS) when they are the one destroyed by such price overlaps.

Well in the case of BitAssets, the assets would not be destroyed but simply collected in a pool to be later collected for other purposes, such as yield. In fact, I believe the same is true with BTS, since I believe the delegate pay rate also determines the cut of the fees collected by the DAC that the delegate takes as income in addition to the cut of the maximum dilution pay. In the case of UIA, it could be considered destroyed or collected in a pool controlled by the issuer (they are equivalent since the issuer has the right to create new UIA on demand). The issuer could then, for example, sell the collected UIA for BitUSD on the exchange.

I wasn't talking about converting the UIA into BTS automatically. Every time a trade occurs between asset A and asset B on the BitShares exchage, the blockchain can choose to collect the overlap either as asset A or asset B or some combination of both. In the BitAsset/BTS exchanges, it is currently collected 100% as the BitAsset to give those profits to BitAsset holders as yield.

My question to bytemaster was how is that overlap collected in the BTS/UIA exchanges and in the BitAsset/UIA exchanges. Is it 100% BTS or 100% UIA in the BTS/UIA exchanges? Also, is it 100% BitAsset in the BitAsset/UIA exchanges to favor the yield on BitAsset holders, or does the profit from overlap in those markets instead go to the UIA issuer to the detriment of the BitAsset yield?

Quote from: arhag on December 07, 2014, 12:19:43 AM

Quote from: tonyk2 on December 06, 2014, 11:41:31 PM

Quote from: arhag on December 06, 2014, 11:33:11 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2014, 06:21:49 PM
You can also make money by charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network and from market fees on the BitShares network.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the bid-ask overlap in UIA/BTS exchanges gets collected as UIA and goes to the issuer, similar to how the bid-ask overlap in BitAsset/BTS exchanges can go towards BitAsset yields? If so, what about overlap in UIA/BitAsset exchanges? Does the overlap get collected towards yield for the BitAsset or profit for the UIA issuer, or a combination of both?

Also, if my assumption are true, is this even desirable? Shouldn't we want to collect overlap towards the benefit of the blockchain and their stakeholders (ideally BTS holders, but also BitAsset yield as a close second)? This maximizes the benefits to holders that actually add value to BTS by holding the assets in our blockchain.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.
...

Actually I like this approach quite a bit. Let them collect their fees  and at the same time make perfectly clear in who's pocket the money go.

I don't know if that was supposed to be a response to my question or not. But that only answers the "charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network" part of bytemaster's quote, which I was already aware of, and not the "market fees on the BitShares network" that I made bold.

My bad probably, but I understood it to mean that 'get what you asked for' market rules destroy some of the user issued asset and this is effectively a 'dividend' for the issuer. Trying to convert such destroyed UIA to the BTS equivalent is a hard to do and am not sure necessary. And we are already collecting the bitAssets( or BTS) when they are the one destroyed by such price overlaps.

Looks like there whole new busi.sector up ahead, this guys
https://xrptalk.org/forum/29-gateways-and-exchanges/
maybe become complement to their network

by the way, if xrp become even more liquid, it wont need to "fix" rate exchange to become store of value

It seems like you're mainly selling them on the idea of starting their own UIA.

Should we also be selling them more on BitAssets and how appealing BitUSD will be to their 37000+ merchants because it holds the value of a dollar and therefore solves the volatilty problem. Or that, they can also offer to convert fiat to BitGold & BitSilver and that in the coming months BitAssets will be expanded to include a wide range of currencies, commodities and stock options.

So the opportunity is that instead of only being a Fiat to Bitcoin business, which has a limited appeal they can acquire a lucrative market leader position in the Fiat to BitAsset business which will sweep through crypto in the following year.

Quote from: tonyk2 on December 06, 2014, 11:41:31 PM

Quote from: arhag on December 06, 2014, 11:33:11 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2014, 06:21:49 PM
You can also make money by charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network and from market fees on the BitShares network.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the bid-ask overlap in UIA/BTS exchanges gets collected as UIA and goes to the issuer, similar to how the bid-ask overlap in BitAsset/BTS exchanges can go towards BitAsset yields? If so, what about overlap in UIA/BitAsset exchanges? Does the overlap get collected towards yield for the BitAsset or profit for the UIA issuer, or a combination of both?

Also, if my assumption are true, is this even desirable? Shouldn't we want to collect overlap towards the benefit of the blockchain and their stakeholders (ideally BTS holders, but also BitAsset yield as a close second)? This maximizes the benefits to holders that actually add value to BTS by holding the assets in our blockchain.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.
...

Actually I like this approach quite a bit. Let them collect their fees  and at the same time make perfectly clear in who's pocket the money go.

I don't know if that was supposed to be a response to my question or not. But that only answers the "charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network" part of bytemaster's quote, which I was already aware of, and not the "market fees on the BitShares network" that I made bold.

This is a great opportunity btw, are you going to provide some API or template ?

QuoteI would like CASS to help convert this into a beautiful document.   

will do tomorrow ...

We want to produce the tools to allow a million gateways to flourish. 

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2014, 11:40:47 PM

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on December 06, 2014, 11:38:14 PM
Wait, I thought you guys were going to "create" your own gateway. Are you know trying to piggy back on the likes of Coinbase instead of home growing one?

Both.

Nice.

Quote from: arhag on December 06, 2014, 11:33:11 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2014, 06:21:49 PM
You can also make money by charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network and from market fees on the BitShares network.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the bid-ask overlap in UIA/BTS exchanges gets collected as UIA and goes to the issuer, similar to how the bid-ask overlap in BitAsset/BTS exchanges can go towards BitAsset yields? If so, what about overlap in UIA/BitAsset exchanges? Does the overlap get collected towards yield for the BitAsset or profit for the UIA issuer, or a combination of both?

Also, if my assumption are true, is this even desirable? Shouldn't we want to collect overlap towards the benefit of the blockchain and their stakeholders (ideally BTS holders, but also BitAsset yield as a close second)? This maximizes the benefits to holders that actually add value to BTS by holding the assets in our blockchain.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.
...

Actually I like this approach quite a bit. Let them collect their fees  and at the same time make perfectly clear in who's pocket the money go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on December 06, 2014, 11:38:14 PM
Wait, I thought you guys were going to "create" your own gateway. Are you know trying to piggy back on the likes of Coinbase instead of home growing one?

I have never heard of any ideas of owning centralized businesses. Other than buying a bank or credit union -btw is this still on the table?

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on December 06, 2014, 11:38:14 PM
Wait, I thought you guys were going to "create" your own gateway. Are you know trying to piggy back on the likes of Coinbase instead of home growing one?

Both. 

Wait, I thought you guys were going to "create" your own gateway. Are you know trying to piggy back on the likes of Coinbase instead of home growing one?

Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2014, 06:21:49 PM
You can also make money by charging users a fee every time they move one of your assets on the BitShares network and from market fees on the BitShares network.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the bid-ask overlap in UIA/BTS exchanges gets collected as UIA and goes to the issuer, similar to how the bid-ask overlap in BitAsset/BTS exchanges can go towards BitAsset yields? If so, what about overlap in UIA/BitAsset exchanges? Does the overlap get collected towards yield for the BitAsset or profit for the UIA issuer, or a combination of both?

Also, if my assumption are true, is this even desirable? Shouldn't we want to collect overlap towards the benefit of the blockchain and their stakeholders (ideally BTS holders, but also BitAsset yield as a close second)? This maximizes the benefits to holders that actually add value to BTS by holding the assets in our blockchain.

This is the opportunity to get a very concise one sheet set and since Coinbase is one of the largest names known for BTC, this is the chance to try and make an impression.  We ARE the 4th mktcap.

I like the proposal, I'm just hoping the timing of the "product" availability in a newer wallet and interface will work well with furthering these sorts contacts.

Quote from: Rune on December 06, 2014, 10:29:22 PM

Quote from: jsidhu on December 06, 2014, 09:45:56 PM
Sounds like they are interested in a proposal and if we get this right they will add in a gateway as soon as possible.

Probably not as soon as possible, I think they will want to know that demand is there first.

However it would be insanely big if we could just get official word from them that when there is enough demand they will become a gateway. That alone would be frontpage news on /r/bitcoin and do more to sell bitassets than anything else.

It's not just this gateway. This document is essential to opening up all major gateway opportunities.