Quote from: xeroc on January 09, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
I further recommend to use a separate multisig account controlled by people familiar with trading and scripting to not bother the committee more.

How to run a trading bot with a multisig account, would be a challenge. Maybe MAKER is easier/sooner.

I support this idea and I also think that for the short-term a +10% should be fine from a market making perspective ... once the orders are no longer filled in a timely manner (because liquidity went up) then we can consider lowering the premium or removing the worker entirely.

I further recommend to use a separate multisig account controlled by people familiar with trading and scripting to not bother the committee more.

It is important for us to realize that liquidity is not for free and we need to figure out how to best approach the market without causing to much of a loss for the shareholders while still providing some liquidity

Once the MAKER fork went through we can kill this idea .. or not ..

The reserve pool should be used to create a supply of bitasset and then they should be put up for sale as a single large wall at no lower than feed price +10% 
This is important for those wishing to close their bitasset debt obligations at a reasonable price.
If bitasset creators are not confident they will be able to exit their positions they are less likely to create bitassets which is bad for liquidity.
The committee will have to be trusted with value that is 300% than the assets created because of reserve requirements.
the proceeds of these sales should be returned to the reserve pool so it is less of a dilution and it stops the committee destroying the bitassets created.
I think this should be done with bitusd only first as a trial.

Liquidity is one of our greatest issues.  One possible solution would be to use the power to dilute to create more bitassets to hold the peg. 

We could create a worker proposal that sends funds to the committee account.  We could design a bot that will short assets into existence and sell them at a prescribed rate above the peg.  This would still require a majority of committee members to approve each transaction.  this approval could also be automated.

We could through the committee have a market maker that holds the peg of smartcoins to within a couple of percentage points of the feed price.  We could even branch out into other derivatives such as individual stocks. 

Once again I am looking for community input.  Please argue your point.  If there are specific parameters that would be deal breakers please mention them as well.   You may change your vote if you have changed your mind.

Thank you for your input.