Constructive criticism creating synergies!

[openledger]

What we need to jump-start liquidity is the deployment of trading bots, as they are designed to do just that and earn money in the process. And this is already happening. Its a slow process because the API is not fully ready for that but it will eventually happen.

I like this, and for sure the best way possible. There might be an interest in looking at Nubits, how the operate their bots, and have people provide liquídity on the base of a monthly income in terms of a % of interest. It has worked very nicely for many months now.

[cass]

And on a positive note: I think you decision to offer 60% in the affiliate program was very cool. And very bold business-wise. It really shows to me that your are truly committed for the long run. That builds confidence.

 

 

[jakub]

@jakub - I agree with much of what you're saying.  But with respect to the marketing message in question, keep in mind that it's directed at current CCEDK users, not the general public.

@tbone, that's a good point.
And that's why I think the current CCEDK users should receive an update just as I described it in my post above.
And keep it informative, it should not sound like advertising too much. Just an update to keep the user aware of what is going on.

[openledger]

 

[jakub]

In so many ways it is impossible to not associate CCEDK with Openledger. Openledger is supported by CCEDK in all the ways possible, and unlike the ugly duckling, we know that it will be a beautiful swan soon, but it needs the support to grow and become fully up and running, and thats where CCEDK is stepping in to say we will be there as long as it needs this support. If we dont, what do you think peopl in the real world will think in terms of where is the legal framework coming from, where is the fiat gateway coming from etc. It is all backed by CCEDK, and investors will need to know this connection in order to have knowledge about it all and not thinking it is a mere fluke and not supported by anyone.

OpenBTC, LTC, DASH, DOGE and more to come as well as OpenEUR, USD, CNY and the soon to be as well(believe it or not) integrated nanocard and its support of smartcoins will be again CCEDK as the connection, and will not work without, so it is to me impossible to leave one out when mentioning the other, as Openledger is part of CCEDK interests for the future, and CCEDK is needed for Openledger to bring the features fiat gateway, nanocard, and various crypto which we are able to ring to Openledger as well.

I get your point. Now I agree that there needs to be the CCEDK brand for the gateway, nanocard etc. So what we have now is a temporary transition period while CCEDK is evolving from being a centralized exchange into being the essential supporting infrastructure behind OL. That makes sense to me. So maybe this needs to be clearly communicated to the world by the mailing list? Especially to the CCEDK users, as they will appreciate being involved in the information loop: they would get a clear message what is going on and what the end result is meant to be.
To sum up: your explanation makes perfect sense to me here on the forum and what is missing is spreading it outside of this forum.

We cannot provide all tools and everything at once, and the fact that nobody is still supporting the liquidity on the already established currencies on OpenLedger only tells me that the community itself is not yet fully ready to support Openledger, so if the community is not yet ready to support Openledger which is meant to be the future of all of this, why is it that CCEDK as an exchange should go all in and then wait for anyone else to participate as they feel ready for it?

This whole thing is a co operation between many parties, and we are trying from our side to bring news step by step, helping to improve the overall experience to any new user signing up on Openledger. We need same full support from all bitshares community in order to be able to do all the good things we want to help bring to the table.

I think making appeals to the community to support liquidity will not work. I speak for myself only and this is how I feel: I don't want to trade just for the sake of adding liquidity if that means I could lose money in the process. Actually I've made several trades on OL already but my primary motivation was to leverage my insider knowledge and earn money, not to help with liquidity (so the added liquidity was only a byproduct of my actions). What we need to jump-start liquidity is the deployment of trading bots, as they are designed to do just that and earn money in the process. And this is already happening. Its a slow process because the API is not fully ready for that but it will eventually happen.
Therefore what the community could do is support worker proposals for trading bots. As a proxy I would definitely vote for that and maybe I could even buy a UIA to support it financially. But I would not risk my money for making trades that I don't really need to make.

[openledger]

So if you need to keep CCEDK, just don't associate it with OL, that's all that's needed to alleviate most of the confusion.

In so many ways it is impossible to not associate CCEDK with Openledger. Openledger is supported by CCEDK in all the ways possible, and unlike the ugly duckling, we know that it will be a beautiful swan soon, but it needs the support to grow and become fully up and running, and thats where CCEDK is stepping in to say we will be there as long as it needs this support. If we dont, what do you think peopl in the real world will think in terms of where is the legal framework coming from, where is the fiat gateway coming from etc. It is all backed by CCEDK, and investors will need to know this connection in order to have knowledge about it all and not thinking it is a mere fluke and not supported by anyone.

OpenBTC, LTC, DASH, DOGE and more to come as well as OpenEUR, USD, CNY and the soon to be as well(believe it or not) integrated nanocard and its support of smartcoins will be again CCEDK as the connection, and will not work without, so it is to me impossible to leave one out when mentioning the other, as Openledger is part of CCEDK interests for the future, and CCEDK is needed for Openledger to bring the features fiat gateway, nanocard, and various crypto which we are able to ring to Openledger as well.

What I see is a vast amount of bitshares users not yet migrated, I see lots of funds out there stuck at exchanges, so all we do is move on towards helping making Openledger the decentralized version of CCEDK with bitshares platform as the base and powered by graphene.

We cannot provide all tools and everything at once, and the fact that nobody is still supporting the liquidity on the already established currencies on OpenLedger only tells me that the community itself is not yet fully ready to support Openledger, so if the community is not yet ready to support Openledger which is meant to be the future of all of this, why is it that CCEDK as an exchange should go all in and then wait for anyone else to participate as they feel ready for it?

This whole thing is a co operation between many parties, and we are trying from our side to bring news step by step, helping to improve the overall experience to any new user signing up on Openledger. We need same full support from all bitshares community in order to be able to do all the good things we want to help bring to the table.

If all work based on a positive way of thinking, and believing in this project as something unique and all will start supporting by bringing in liquidity, constructive help and development, and genuine interest to make all things better, then you have to see present time as the time where this ugly duckly is about to take shape and become that beautiful swan everyone is hoping it to be.

Last, a good friend of mine said action speaks louder than words, so I think sentences which I have seen plenty of times on forum "I will place liquidity, if someone else does it first" is holding development back and does not support the idea of progress.

[liondani]

The assumption of CCEDK users by now all know about OpenLedger from various news letters and has an interest in knowing more about Openledger and the smartcoins, as well as the excitement from our side to share the news, is why we felt no reason not to share this easy acces to smartcoins via btc instant order feature on CCEDK.

I think the general expectation was that CCEDK would fully migrate to OL. That did not happen. But as it is entirely your business decision, I'm not criticizing that.
All I'd like to point out, is the external user perspective: from the outside it looks inconsistent because OL was strongly advertised (before the launch) as a significant improvement over centralized exchanges. So the perception is this: you advertise something but you yourself are not really using it. Once again, business-wise it might make sense. I'm just telling you how it might be perceived by the outside world. And perception does matter, even if it's irrational. So if you need to keep CCEDK, just don't associate it with OL, that's all that's needed to alleviate most of the confusion.

 

@ccedk Have you thought to fully migrate? I think that would be wise... (Just my personal opinion not knowing the details)

PS would you do that if CNX made a better deal to you???

[tbone]

@jakub - I agree with much of what you're saying.  But with respect to the marketing message in question, keep in mind that it's directed at current CCEDK users, not the general public. 

[openledger]

If you could take the best part of CCEDK (i.e. the gateway features) and integrate them into OL - that will be the final touch that's needed to make it the best exchange on the market.

Yes! I really would like to get my euros (that are deposited to CCEDK) to Openledger (as UIA's). Unfortunately the market for bitEUR / EUR is not very liquid a the moment at CCEDK, but in the long run it will be very important. People need a way to change their bitEUR to normal euros that they can transfer to their bank accounts. And vice versa, people who do not care to own BTS or other volatile assets need a way to buy bitEUR with their euros.

Do you have any timeframe how soon we could have OPENEUR?

According to BM, within the coming week or two

[Samupaha]

If you could take the best part of CCEDK (i.e. the gateway features) and integrate them into OL - that will be the final touch that's needed to make it the best exchange on the market.

Yes! I really would like to get my euros (that are deposited to CCEDK) to Openledger (as UIA's). Unfortunately the market for bitEUR / EUR is not very liquid a the moment at CCEDK, but in the long run it will be very important. People need a way to change their bitEUR to normal euros that they can transfer to their bank accounts. And vice versa, people who do not care to own BTS or other volatile assets need a way to buy bitEUR with their euros.

Do you have any timeframe how soon we could have OPENEUR?

[fav]

And on a positive note: I think you decision to offer 60% in the affiliate program was very cool. And very bold business-wise. It really shows to me that your are truly committed for the long run. That builds confidence.

 

[jakub]

The assumption of CCEDK users by now all know about OpenLedger from various news letters and has an interest in knowing more about Openledger and the smartcoins, as well as the excitement from our side to share the news, is why we felt no reason not to share this easy acces to smartcoins via btc instant order feature on CCEDK.

I think the general expectation was that CCEDK would fully migrate to OL. That did not happen. But as it is entirely your business decision, I'm not criticizing that.
All I'd like to point out, is the external user perspective: from the outside it looks inconsistent because OL was strongly advertised (before the launch) as a significant improvement over centralized exchanges. So the perception is this: you advertise something but you yourself are not really using it. Once again, business-wise it might make sense. I'm just telling you how it might be perceived by the outside world. And perception does matter, even if it's irrational. So if you need to keep CCEDK, just don't associate it with OL, that's all that's needed to alleviate most of the confusion.

Making OpenLedger a decentralized version of CCEDK is not a task impossible, but all innovation takes time to present in full, and I think and hope you will all in due time find out what is all the good stuff getting added to Openledger step by step.

I fully understand it. Nothing gets done overnight.

Remember we are all interested in making this platform succeed, and if mailout like this is off topic or wrong , I can only say I am sorry for the confusion, and hope you will give me the time to check it all out and then present it the way it should be done, and we have one more successful presentation of OpenLedger.

Yes, this mail-out action was a bit misguided but that's just a small setback on a very long road.
I think the major error was to combine CCEDK and OL in one message. Just keep CCEDK as a separate entity, as some legacy system. For me the major flaw with CCEDK has always been its UI - you've a had a pretty good product (and unique offering regarding the European market) but it was never packaged well in terms of UX. And OL is radically different in this respect - the GUI is fantastic, it looks and feels cool. And it does cool things. If you could take the best part of CCEDK (i.e. the gateway features) and integrate them into OL - that will be the final touch that's needed to make it the best exchange on the market.

Lst, thank you for caring and showing the interest in making this more clear.

Yours sincerely an keep me posted with stuff like this. It hurts, but in the same time it is good for getting all out the best way possible, so comments like this is all o well apreciated, especially if I get the solution in the same time

You are welcome, Ronny. I do appreciate your efforts and that's why I want to help, even if it hurts.
And on a positive note: I think you decision to offer 60% in the affiliate program was very cool. And very bold business-wise. It really shows to me that your are truly committed for the long run. That builds confidence.

[openledger]

@ccedk, below is some tough feedback I felt I needed to offer to you - this is regarding the latest mail message I got from CCEDK mailing list.
Please take it as constructive criticism. I've written it because I do care. I really do.



(1) In a single message you freely mix references to CCEDK and Open Ledger. For an average user, it is absolutely unclear what the relationship is between CCEDK and Open Ledger. At first I thought you advertise direct deposits for bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY inside Open Ledger and it took me a while to recover from the confusion.

(2) "Make deposit in a single click" - frankly, I have no idea what it actually means. If it is so simple just describe the process in one simple sentence, just tell the user how s/he starts with fiat EUR and ends up with bitEUR (assuming this is the single-click process you refer to, as the header says: "SmartCoin deposits bitUSD, bitEUR, bitCNY")

To sum up, I'm a BTS insider and you've managed to make me quite confused what this is all about (so just imagine the confusion happening in case of a less oriented user).

And when I started clicking on the links hoping to find out more information, I ended up in some sections of the CCEDK website, which still explained nothing. Maybe this would work if CCEDK was well designed in terms of UX but sadly it is currently very far from that. And I guess CCEDK is not going to have an UX uplift any time soon, so you need to explain to your user what to do step by step, ideally with appropriate screen-shots.

Additionally, all links are obscured to this format: "ccedk.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?=u....".
That's not very user-friendly - personally I'd prefer to know where the link is going to take me before I click on it.

First off, I do take it as constructive critizism, we are all humans in this, and the excitement of new stuff may sometimes cause us to put on the wrong glasses.

The assumption of CCEDK users by now all know about OpenLedger from various news letters and has an interest in knowing more about Openledger and the smartcoins, as well as the excitement from our side to share the news, is why we felt no reason not to share this easy acces to smartcoins via btc instant order feature on CCEDK.

Making OpenLedger a decentralized version of CCEDK is not a task impossible, but all innovation takes time to present in full, and I think and hope you will all in due time find out what is all the good stuff getting added to Openledger step by step.

Evrybody is asking for everything at once, and nobody I see sofar is bringing liquidity to OpenLedger as market makers, all waiting for the other guy to be the first, and then things do take time all in all. This is not a complaint, but a simple fact of present situation, and something I believe will change over time, as everything takes time to build.

Remember we are all interested in making this platform succeed, and if mailout like this is off topic or wrong , I can only say I am sorry for the confusion, and hope you will give me the time to check it all out and then present it the way it should be done, and we have one more successful presentation of OpenLedger.

Lst, thank you for caring and showing the interest in making this more clear.

Yours sincerely an keep me posted with stuff like this. It hurts, but in the same time it is good for getting all out the best way possible, so comments like this is all o well apreciated, especially if I get the solution in the same time

[fav]

you can't change links in newsletters easily, you have to track. but that's not the issue here, I agree with @jakub - I did not get the message of this mail either

[donkeypong]

Yes, I just read that e-mail. And I did not find it very clear either. But I love what you guys are doing with CCEDK and OL.