Author Topic: Benefits of Becoming a BitShares Gateway [posted]  (Read 22446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

merockstar

  • Guest
Haven't read the whole thread yet, just saw "feedback wanted," and dug in. Hope there's still time for feedback on this, looks like I'm late to the thread. Even if not, there may be other uses for this text to continue improving.

Benefits of Becoming a BitShares Gateway

The BitShares network allows anyone to issue digital assets known as User Issued Assets (UIA).  These assets can be used to track shares in a company, deposits in a bank, reward points, among other uses.   Once an asset has been issued it can be freely traded against all of the other asset types on the network including the fully collateralized market issued assets, which are capable of tracking the price of real world assets like the dollar, and the price of an ounce gold. 

UIAs and collateralized market pegged assets are not the same thing, right? UIAs being like BitShares ME and the later being the more interesting, more generally important advancement, so I would start by describing those instead of UIAs first. I think it's important to be more clear about what you mean when you say "fully collateralized market issued assets."

Is the fact that the assets are collateralized important enough to point it out? I kind of feel like by including that as a selling point in the wrong context we could be misleading people into thinking they're insured, when really if the system fails (we're pretty damn sure it wont but they aren't), they're still boned. The collateralization really only makes sure there'll be a buyer later, and regulates the supply. It doesn't impact the price. It's just an extra needlessly confusing long word taking up space.

Are we stuck on "User Issued Assets" as a name? When I read that it invokes imagery from the Nxt client of a bunch of worthless assets that may or may not have been created by some random joker and may or may not be worthless tomorrow. How about "individualized value tokens?" I think it could get confusing referring to two different stores of value under the same "asset" umbrella.


Quote
This guide will provide a brief overview of the business opportunities available for those who wish to become a BitShares Gateway.   A Gateway provides the service of bridging external assets such as fiat dollars, gold, silver, and Bitcoin into the BitShares network.   This service is critical to the success of BitShares because the vast majority of value moving into and out of the BitShares network must flow through a Gateway. Benefits to the providers of such services include several extra added income streams since not just one asset is being traded, access to a more stable and interest producing way to store value digitally than a young and volatile cryptocurrency, and the reputation and potential speculative gains that come along with being an early adopter of a promising new advancement in cryptocurrency.

I feel like this is a better introductory paragraph for the whole paper, consider cutting and pasting to the top of the whole thing. It tells succinctly why you're writing, what and a gateway is. I dislike the third sentence though. Coinbase probably doesn't care about what is critical for BitShares success, they care about their own asses! Not to mention implying that something is critical to the products success also implies there's a decent chance the product could fail (if the critical condition is not met). You might instead say it's an important role. And instead of saying why the service is critical to BitShare's success, spell out some of the benefits for Coinbase instead.

Quote
Generating Revenue as a Gateway

Gateways have many ways of generating revenue.  The most straightforward method is by charging transaction fee every time someone moves value through your service.   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.   In addition to transaction fees of various sorts, gateways also have an opportunity to generate revenue interest on the float they hold for their customers.

This is good, but I wonder if it's redundant. Their business model is being a gateway, I'm sure they are aware that that's how they would make money off this. Better to focus on new ways we could bring them revenue, by bringing more people into the fold by solving problems Bitcoin hasn't yet, by introducing multiple new potential trading pairs instead of just one, and by generating interest on their holdings.

Quote
How It Works

Every single Bitcoin exchange is already performing a similar role to a gateway.  Users transfer funds to the exchange, the exchange tracks how much it owes each user, and when a user asks for a withdraw the exchange sends the funds back.    While the funds are on the exchange users can quickly and safely perform trades with other users of the same exchange.

A BitShares gateway does the exact same process, the only difference is that the database that tracks the users deposits to the exchange is the BItShares blockchain.   When a user transfers fiat dollars or bitcoin to a gateway, the gateway responds by transferring an IOU asset issued by the gateway back to the user.    When the user returns the IOU to the gateway the gateway sends fiat dollars or bitcoin back to the user.   (What is the benefit of this?)

The IOU asset is tremendously useful to users in the BitShares ecosystem because it serves as a very flexible multi-party escrow asset.   Users will use an IOU USD from your gateway to trade against BitUSD and/or IOUs from other gateways.    Users want to store value in BitUSD because it is mostly free of counter party risk, but when it comes time to convert BitUSD back to fiat USD they will do so through a gateway.   

I think a simpler explanation is in order here, the whole IOU thing is confusing and cumbersome. Instead of trying to paint the picture with the whole IOU thing, consider just being like, "users register in the bitshares network similarly to how they do at your exchange. Instead of providing an escrow service and trading platform, your role would be to interface with the bitshares blockchain to effect trades directly on the blockchain. the only trust that need to be placed in your hands is that of handling fiat money, but from the end users perspective nothing has changed, except there are more (stable) assets to choose from now."

Quote
Legal Compliance

Any company that takes deposits from customers and facilitates transfers among customers is heavily regulated in most countries.   These regulations include license requirements, bonds, insurance, know your customer laws, and anti-money-laundering compliance among others.   The BitShares block chain provides gateways with all of the tools necessary all necessary tools and resources to comply with these regulations.

If you are in this business you are already maintaining a database tracking user deposits and your database is probably logging every single transaction and balance change.    Your database knows exactly who is owed what at any point in time.   You also have the power to seize or freeze user balances at the demand of law enforcement.   BitShares provides you with all of these features as well as including the following features:

  1) Ability to white list public keys that may control a balance of your asset.
  2) Ability to freeze all funds and stop all trading of your assets
  3) Ability to transfer any balance of your asset from any user to any other user
 
In other words, if you are operating a legally complaintcompliant crypto currency exchange, then you can easily expand your business to becoming a BitShares gateway.  then the next logical step to expand is to become a BitShares gateway and embrace all the new steps forward the BitShares network has to offer. We make implementation easy, so you can focus on your customers.



The Security paragraph sounds good. But again, I would try to move away from the IOU example, it's cliche. There has got to be a better way to explain this.

General thought: perhaps there's a way we could insert a subtle suggestion that when there's enough volume bitUSD will be interchangeable with the dollar completely, and they would have the option to restructure their business entirely around reselling bitUSD which can then be used to trade for other cryptos, or converted back into a dollar. You already kind of pitched it above as a security benefit (which is fucking brilliant, by the way), but you could also pitch it as a way to simplify their own infrastructure. If we can do a better job of emphasizing the benefits of this, then we could end up with people who might not otherwise be interested in bitshares buying bitusd so they could buy bitcoin.

I'm sure I can come up with more input on this, and I will come back, it's a very important document. Brain hurts for now though.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
if doc is ready to go pls let me know...
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline bytemaster

Yes all of the above is maybe fine...
I just cannot get over the fact that there are 2 matching orders for the same amount ( a buy and a sell for 80 bitUSD) and the system after doing its thing leaves an outstanding buy order for 16 dollars.

It helps if you think in terms of BTS. There is a sell order at the 0.025 BitUSD/BTS price (or lower) for some amount of BitUSD valued at 3200 BTS no matter the price point. Let us assume that is the only sell order in the entire order book for simplicity. It doesn't matter how much BTS I have, how much BitUSD I want, and what price I am willing to pay for it. There is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available.

If I choose to over pay by using my BTS to buy BitUSD at a price lower than 0.025 BitUSD/BTS, the system will collect the difference as overlap. Since there is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available no matter what price I choose, the lower my bid price is, the less BitUSD I can get out of it. So If I choose a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 64 BitUSD available for me to buy (costing me 3200 BTS). If I choose a price of 0.01 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 32 BitUSD available for me to buy (again costing me 3200 BTS).
I told you I got the idea after your first explanation (thanks btw for explaining it).
I can look for angles trying to find it just... but the facts remain there were 2 orders (a buy and a sell) for equal amounts of bitUSD. They matched pricewise. But after execution one of them was left not fully filled. Why? - The system likes its fees in certain asset types. Even if it does, here is my more fair solution:
Match them, use the collected fees to buy the asset you desire.

There sure is mechanism to execute triggered (margin called or expired) cover orders at the feed price. Just use the same mechanism to convert the fee collected in BTS  to bitUSD. The only change needed is to direct the bitUSD bought by such orders to the yield fund, instead of closing the short order.

[What is the problem with such approach? Too many smaller than the fee orders? You must have a way to deal with them as you are already handling small short position...I have several shorts smaller than the fee as we speak. I am not closing them (and paying the fee) let the system deal with them as it pleases. Or just make such orders fee free.]

This has been throughly discussed and documented.  It is necessary to prevent front runners from stealing the fees. 
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 11:37:34 pm by Stan »
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

zerosum

  • Guest
Am I the only one missing the direct connection between their 'USD Wallet' and bitUSD?

Offline robrigo

http://blog.coinbase.com/post/104112477642/usd-wallets-on-coinbase

In light of this recently added feature I think becoming a bitshares gateway will actually fit perfectly into coinbases business model. People who have usd wallets will then be able to send them either as bitcoins on the bitcoin network, or as coinbaseUSD UIA on the bitshares network, and it can all be done to bitcoin addresses.

I wonder if Coinbase would be able to bring the USD wallet service legally to the states that aren't supported yet as a BitShares gateway.

Could it be a way for them to quickly open up the floodgates on their USD service without having to jump through the same legal hoops that their current USD wallet has to?

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Interesting. Maybe the whole Bitcoin economy isn't expanding as fast as they'd hoped and Coinbase is looking to grow outwards.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
http://blog.coinbase.com/post/104112477642/usd-wallets-on-coinbase

In light of this recently added feature I think becoming a bitshares gateway will actually fit perfectly into coinbases business model. People who have usd wallets will then be able to send them either as bitcoins on the bitcoin network, or as coinbaseUSD UIA on the bitshares network, and it can all be done to bitcoin addresses.

wow .. maybe that's there bigger plan for the USD wallet .. makes sense to me ..
awesome development ..

@cass: can you add this document to your book writing repository?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 05:52:32 pm by xeroc »

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
http://blog.coinbase.com/post/104112477642/usd-wallets-on-coinbase

In light of this recently added feature I think becoming a bitshares gateway will actually fit perfectly into coinbases business model. People who have usd wallets will then be able to send them either as bitcoins on the bitcoin network, or as coinbaseUSD UIA on the bitshares network, and it can all be done to bitcoin addresses.

zerosum

  • Guest
Yes all of the above is maybe fine...
I just cannot get over the fact that there are 2 matching orders for the same amount ( a buy and a sell for 80 bitUSD) and the system after doing its thing leaves an outstanding buy order for 16 dollars.

It helps if you think in terms of BTS. There is a sell order at the 0.025 BitUSD/BTS price (or lower) for some amount of BitUSD valued at 3200 BTS no matter the price point. Let us assume that is the only sell order in the entire order book for simplicity. It doesn't matter how much BTS I have, how much BitUSD I want, and what price I am willing to pay for it. There is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available.

If I choose to over pay by using my BTS to buy BitUSD at a price lower than 0.025 BitUSD/BTS, the system will collect the difference as overlap. Since there is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available no matter what price I choose, the lower my bid price is, the less BitUSD I can get out of it. So If I choose a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 64 BitUSD available for me to buy (costing me 3200 BTS). If I choose a price of 0.01 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 32 BitUSD available for me to buy (again costing me 3200 BTS).
I told you I got the idea after your first explanation (thanks btw for explaining it).
I can look for angles trying to find it just... but the facts remain there were 2 orders (a buy and a sell) for equal amounts of bitUSD. They matched pricewise. But after execution one of them was left not fully filled. Why? - The system likes its fees in certain asset types. Even if it does, here is my more fair solution:
Match them, use the collected fees to buy the asset you desire.

There sure is mechanism to execute triggered (margin called or expired) cover orders at the feed price. Just use the same mechanism to convert the fee collected in BTS  to bitUSD. The only change needed is to direct the bitUSD bought by such orders to the yield fund, instead of closing the short order.

[What is the problem with such approach? Too many smaller than the fee orders? You must have a way to deal with them as you are already handling small short position...I have several shorts smaller than the fee as we speak. I am not closing them (and paying the fee) let the system deal with them as it pleases. Or just make such orders fee free.]

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Yes all of the above is maybe fine...
I just cannot get over the fact that there are 2 matching orders for the same amount ( a buy and a sell for 80 bitUSD) and the system after doing its thing leaves an outstanding buy order for 16 dollars.

It helps if you think in terms of BTS. There is a sell order at the 0.025 BitUSD/BTS price (or lower) for some amount of BitUSD valued at 3200 BTS no matter the price point. Let us assume that is the only sell order in the entire order book for simplicity. It doesn't matter how much BTS I have, how much BitUSD I want, and what price I am willing to pay for it. There is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available.

If I choose to over pay by using my BTS to buy BitUSD at a price lower than 0.025 BitUSD/BTS, the system will collect the difference as overlap. Since there is only 3200 BTS worth of BitUSD available no matter what price I choose, the lower my bid price is, the less BitUSD I can get out of it. So If I choose a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 64 BitUSD available for me to buy (costing me 3200 BTS). If I choose a price of 0.01 BitUSD/BTS, there is only 32 BitUSD available for me to buy (again costing me 3200 BTS).
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 07:56:18 am by arhag »

zerosum

  • Guest
Assuming the same numbers as in your example (except you are trying to buy 80 bitUSD not 100).
You are saying that right now, the system will match my sell 80 bitUSD  and your sell 80 bitUSD and when all is said and done - I will have sold my 80 bitUSD and you will have a outstanding order to buy 16 bitUSD  ?????

Yes. Just to reiterate, if I am trying to buy 80 BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS and you are selling 80 BitUSD at a price of 0.025 BitUSD/BTS and the system wanted to collect all overlap in the form of BitUSD, then it could take your entire 80 BitUSD (since you are the limiting factor in this match) and note that it owes you 3200 BTS, take the 3200 BTS it needs to pay you back from me and note that it owes me 64 BitUSD, pay you the 3200 BTS it took from me and now it no longer owes you anything, pay me 64 BitUSD out of the 80 BitUSD it got from you and now it no longer owes me anything, and finally it is left with 16 BitUSD in profit from the overlap. Since I only received 64 BitUSD in exchange for 3200 BTS, I still have an outstanding order for 16 BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS with the necessary 800 BTS to back it.

Is this how the system really works now? Outrageous.

I haven't studied the code or anything, but I think this is how the code works. Obviously, a dev should confirm. Anyway, this is how it would have to work if the system wants to collect all overlap as BitUSD to pay as yields to holders.

Not sure why you think it is outrageous. It is a sensible way for the blockchain to collect profits in the form it wants without having to drive the market itself by putting its own bids and asks to convert one form of digital asset to another.
Yes all of the above is maybe fine...
I just cannot get over the fact that there are 2 matching orders for the same amount ( a buy and a sell for 80 bitUSD) and the system after doing its thing leaves an outstanding buy order for 16 dollars.

In other words - I expect when my order is matched with another one (for the whole amount) it to be filled, and not left partially standing there because of the system's   asset-form preference for the fees collected.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 07:47:23 am by tonyk2 »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Assuming the same numbers as in your example (except you are trying to buy 80 bitUSD not 100).
You are saying that right now, the system will match my sell 80 bitUSD  and your sell 80 bitUSD and when all is said and done - I will have sold my 80 bitUSD and you will have a outstanding order to buy 16 bitUSD  ?????

Yes. Just to reiterate, if I am trying to buy 80 BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS and you are selling 80 BitUSD at a price of 0.025 BitUSD/BTS and the system wanted to collect all overlap in the form of BitUSD, then it could take your entire 80 BitUSD (since you are the limiting factor in this match) and note that it owes you 3200 BTS, take the 3200 BTS it needs to pay you back from me and note that it owes me 64 BitUSD, pay you the 3200 BTS it took from me and now it no longer owes you anything, pay me 64 BitUSD out of the 80 BitUSD it got from you and now it no longer owes me anything, and finally it is left with 16 BitUSD in profit from the overlap. Since I only received 64 BitUSD in exchange for 3200 BTS, I still have an outstanding order for 16 BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS with the necessary 800 BTS to back it.

Is this how the system really works now? Outrageous.

I haven't studied the code or anything, but I think this is how the code works. Obviously, a dev should confirm. Anyway, this is how it would have to work if the system wants to collect all overlap as BitUSD to pay as yields to holders.

Not sure why you think it is outrageous. It is a sensible way for the blockchain to collect profits in the form it wants without having to drive the market itself by putting its own bids and asks to convert one form of digital asset to another.

zerosum

  • Guest
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.


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.


I have not figured out how is the bold part possible. And my requests for some help explaining those mechanics to me have not been answered. So I continue to assume that only one or the other is destroyed(collected) in each particular transaction.

Let's say I have an order to sell up to 5000 BTS in exchange for BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS (maximum total of 100 BitUSD can be received). Let's also say you have an order to sell up to 80 BitUSD in exchange for BTS at a price of 0.025 BitUSD/BTS (maximum total of 3200 BTS can be received). If our two orders match (meaning their prices overlap and there are no other orders that have a better deal), the block chain has a choice of how much to match of each of our orders.

In theory, it could completely fulfill your order and partially fulfill mine up to the maximum of 4000 BTS, but that would force it to collect the overlap all as BTS (the overlap in that case would be 800 BTS). Instead let's say the blockchain wanted to collected f fraction as BTS and (1-f) fraction as BitUSD. It would still collect all 80 BitUSD from you but X BitUSD would be taken as part of the overlap. Using my price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS, the blockchain could exchange the remaining (80-X) BitUSD for (4000 - 50*X) BTS taken from me, leaving me with (1000 + 50*X) BTS unmatched in my order. The blockchain would take a cut of Y BTS from the collected BTS as the other part of the overlap leaving (4000 - 50*X - Y) BTS available to give to you for the 80 BitUSD it took from you. However, it needs to satisfy your price constraint, meaning it needs to give you 3200 BTS for your 80 BitUSD, thus: 4000 - 50*X - Y = 3200, or 50*X + Y = 800.

The blockchain also has another constraint which is that the overlap collected as BitUSD and the overlap collected as BTS need to have some ratio of value determined by f. Let's use the average price of 0.0225 BitUSD/BTS to price everything in the same units (BitUSD). Therefore with that price, the X BitUSD overlap fee would of course be worth X BitUSD and the Y BTS overlap would be worth 0.0225*Y BitUSD. Then, the constraint is 0.0225*Y = f*(X + 0.0225*Y), where f is prescribed.

Simplifying the equations gives us:
1) X + 0.02*Y = 16
and
2) f*X - 0.0225*(1-f)*Y = 0

By plugging equation (1) into variable X in equation (2) and solving for Y, we get:
3) Y = 16*f/(0.0225 - 0.0025*f)

And by plugging equation (3) in equation (1) and solving for X, we get:
4) X = 16*(1 - 0.02*f/(0.0225 - 0.0025*f))

I plotted X and Y as a function of f over its domain [0,1] where the units of the vertical axis are in BitUSD and Y(f) is scaled by the price 0.02 BitUSD/BTS to fit the scale of the vertical axis. No matter what value of f is chosen, the total value of the overlap is the same 16 BitUSD (using the price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS of course).


Assuming the same numbers as in your example (except you are trying to buy 80 bitUSD not 100).
You are saying that right now, the system will match my sell 80 bitUSD  and your sell 80 bitUSD and when all is said and done - I will have sold my 80 bitUSD and you will have a outstanding order to buy 16 bitUSD  ?????

Is this how the system really works now? Outrageous.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
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.


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.


I have not figured out how is the bold part possible. And my requests for some help explaining those mechanics to me have not been answered. So I continue to assume that only one or the other is destroyed(collected) in each particular transaction.

Let's say I have an order to sell up to 5000 BTS in exchange for BitUSD at a price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS (maximum total of 100 BitUSD can be received). Let's also say you have an order to sell up to 80 BitUSD in exchange for BTS at a price of 0.025 BitUSD/BTS (maximum total of 3200 BTS can be received). If our two orders match (meaning their prices overlap and there are no other orders that have a better deal), the block chain has a choice of how much to match of each of our orders.

In theory, it could completely fulfill your order and partially fulfill mine up to the maximum of 4000 BTS, but that would force it to collect the overlap all as BTS (the overlap in that case would be 800 BTS). Instead let's say the blockchain wanted to collected f fraction as BTS and (1-f) fraction as BitUSD. It would still collect all 80 BitUSD from you but X BitUSD would be taken as part of the overlap. Using my price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS, the blockchain could exchange the remaining (80-X) BitUSD for (4000 - 50*X) BTS taken from me, leaving me with (1000 + 50*X) BTS unmatched in my order. The blockchain would take a cut of Y BTS from the collected BTS as the other part of the overlap leaving (4000 - 50*X - Y) BTS available to give to you for the 80 BitUSD it took from you. However, it needs to satisfy your price constraint, meaning it needs to give you 3200 BTS for your 80 BitUSD, thus: 4000 - 50*X - Y = 3200, or 50*X + Y = 800.

The blockchain also has another constraint which is that the overlap collected as BitUSD and the overlap collected as BTS need to have some ratio of value determined by f. Let's use the average price of 0.0225 BitUSD/BTS to price everything in the same units (BitUSD). Therefore with that price, the X BitUSD overlap fee would of course be worth X BitUSD and the Y BTS overlap would be worth 0.0225*Y BitUSD. Then, the constraint is 0.0225*Y = f*(X + 0.0225*Y), where f is prescribed.

Simplifying the equations gives us:
1) X + 0.02*Y = 16
and
2) f*X - 0.0225*(1-f)*Y = 0

By plugging equation (1) into variable X in equation (2) and solving for Y, we get:
3) Y = 16*f/(0.0225 - 0.0025*f)

And by plugging equation (3) in equation (1) and solving for X, we get:
4) X = 16*(1 - 0.02*f/(0.0225 - 0.0025*f))

I plotted X and Y as a function of f over its domain [0,1] where the units of the vertical axis are in BitUSD and Y(f) is scaled by the price 0.02 BitUSD/BTS to fit the scale of the vertical axis. No matter what value of f is chosen, the total value of the overlap is the same 16 BitUSD (using the price of 0.02 BitUSD/BTS of course).
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 02:26:49 am by arhag »

zerosum

  • Guest
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.


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.


I have not figured out how is the bold part possible. And my requests for some help explaining those mechanics to me have not been answered. So I continue to assume that only one or the other is destroyed(collected) in each particular transaction.