Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 25, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
what happened to this idea and the proposal to sell accumulated fees which are now sitting in the committee account?

It got stuck inbetween some trying to make a push to lower fees.. the threat we recently addressed.

I have bought it up again now and hopefully there are some actionable recommendations that can come to a consensus.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 25, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
what happened to this idea and the proposal to sell accumulated fees which are now sitting in the committee account?

I've asked about this too. I was under the assumption they had all figured out so once it was approved, they could immediately do that. However that's not what happened. The fees got collected but they're still finding the best way to use them...

committee was busy closing an exploitable issue in the fees .. and AFAIR, there is another issue with the fees yet to be fixed ..

what happened to this idea and the proposal to sell accumulated fees which are now sitting in the committee account?

Whether we end up using worker funding or not we will need to sell the bitassets we are withdrawing from the fee pool.  I like xerocs idea of creating an account owned be the committee account and using that for trading.  Who would we like to see on it?  I'd like to be involved.  Any other volunteers?  You will need to be handy with the cli wallet and able to run a python script.  I don't think any special understanding of market mechanics is needed.  I think 5 members with a 4 of 5 weight would be a good target

Quote from: julian1 on January 10, 2016, 09:11:50 PM

Quote from: pc on January 10, 2016, 02:59:31 PM

Quote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 AM
I don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.

+1

+1 If there is a constant premium, then adjust the market operations (eg. forced settlement) to bring the risk/incentives as well as price back in line.

Alternatively, if it is the spread that is too large, then that's a signal that there are profit opportunities for market-makers.

Using dilution for this, is like a company buying it's own product to improve it's books.

Adjusting market dynamics and relying on more adoption/market makers has been the strategy used for the past 2 years with little success. How long do we have to wait before admitting it's broken... a decade?

Quote from: pc on January 10, 2016, 02:59:31 PM

Quote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 AM
I don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.

+1

+1 If there is a constant premium, then adjust the market operations (eg. forced settlement) to bring the risk/incentives as well as price back in line.

Alternatively, if it is the spread that is too large, then that's a signal that there are profit opportunities for market-makers.

Using dilution for this, is like a company buying it's own product to improve it's books.

Quote from: xeroc on January 10, 2016, 08:21:18 AM

Quote from: Chronos on January 10, 2016, 04:34:35 AM
@CoinHoarder Are you aware of the Forced Settlement feature inside Bitshares? It allows the holder of a smartcoin like BitUSD to convert back to BTS at 99% of the price feed.

Settlememt is at exactly feed price (100%)

@xeroc @Chronos

ROFL. I am stupid, no I did not know that was possible. How can I miss something like that?!

Quote from: puppies on January 10, 2016, 07:17:11 AM

Quote from: xeroc on January 10, 2016, 06:59:44 AM
You need to also realize that a workee that pays to the committe does not 'really' result in an extra 'dilution' since the funds cannot easily leave the system as sell pressure on polo .. the workers pay will stay in the system and may even make some profit for the dex ..
Fast forward some months, those profits could be burned again

I've been trying to reason through the math of that. 

Let's say we create  a worker proposal for $30k worth of bts.  We then use that to short $10k USD.  We then sell that $10k USD for $10k worth of bts. 

Result is not net inflationary right? $10k USD on the market plus $30k USD as collateral.  I think I must be missing something through.

Net result is deflationary.  $30k worth of bts is effectively locked up and out of circulation while only $10k is in circulation.  This is assuming the usd creator maintains $30k in collateral. 

Quote from: mf-tzo on January 09, 2016, 09:34:54 PM
Ok...Now that the wording of the poll has changed I don't have a problem and would support a worker proposal for that reason. I will even start voting if we have a worker proposal to reduce the premium for bitassets..Just please never mention the word dilution in the forum even if the worker proposal is essentially that please don't mention this word..!!

Bitcoin uses the term 'block reward'  or 'block subsidy' which is what we should use.  There is really no difference in the 21 million supply limit in bitcoin and the 3.7 billion supply limit in bitshares.  15 million of the 21 million limit (71.4%) has been created in bitcoin.  2.5 billion of the 3.7 billion limit (67.5 %) has been created in bitshares.  As long as we NEVER vote in something that exceeds this limit, then the bitshares reward is no differrent than the bitcoin reward.

That said, I say we go ahead and use block rewards to fund maker, lending, and some market making if possible.  sprint to the finish line, not walk, and do everything we can to get liquidity to the exchange within the limits of funding that we have to work with.

As far as external market making I think a worker proposal that pays members to risk their own liquidity is a good idea. 

If the liquidity itself is being provided by the worker proposal then I think we should keep it simple verifiable and on blockchain.

Xeroc.  Great idea about setting the committee as the owner of the account.  That way we still have a means of recovering funds if needed. 

Quote from: fuzzy on January 10, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
why not have it so all thebworkers pay out in actual bitassets instead of bts directly?

Are you speaking seriously?
Because nobody create the bitassets.
Because of lack of liquidity.
Because the borrower can be margin called, if the system borrows, it would be more vulnerable.

why not have it so all thebworkers pay out in actual bitassets instead of bts directly? 

Quote from: pc on January 10, 2016, 02:59:31 PM

Quote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 AM
I don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.

+1

As a developer, I do want more funds go to development activities (so perhaps less go to others).
But as an investor, I want funds to be spent on whatever benefits the whole "company" most.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 AM
I don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.

+1