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?