Author Topic: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume  (Read 4937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2015, 12:35:49 pm »
Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.

Sorry, maybe I just feel a little stressed ight now with too much work, thanks

We appreciate all your doing for BTS +5% and of course youre really busy!

But I agree with phillyguy, when I read your summer announcement about moving to the blockchain, I was hoping that you wouldnt continue to maintain 2 separate orderbooks. I was hoping that ccedk.com would become a frontend to the blockchain and would show exactly the same orders as whats on the webwallet. This is what BitShares really needs to solve its liquidity problem.

Offline btswolf

Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2015, 12:37:22 pm »
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
+5% +5% +5%

Offline seraphim

Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2015, 12:44:08 pm »
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.
Meet you on STEEM

Offline openledger

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2015, 01:08:37 pm »
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.

What kind of comment is this? I suggest you make a more detailed report on why OpenLedger does not solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, and then you ask BM in another thread to answer, because I see no chance to reply.

We are only having extra costs by joining this project, so any talk about reducing the costs you really have to take somewhere else. I dont believe its fair to even start discussing about why a platform does not work when users are still struggling to get on it in the first place, the fiat gateway has not been added yet, the affiliation system not fully active and centralized exchanges still not integrated and holding funds of many users.

OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2015, 02:27:14 pm »
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.

What kind of comment is this? I suggest you make a more detailed report on why OpenLedger does not solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, and then you ask BM in another thread to answer, because I see no chance to reply.

We are only having extra costs by joining this project, so any talk about reducing the costs you really have to take somewhere else. I dont believe its fair to even start discussing about why a platform does not work when users are still struggling to get on it in the first place, the fiat gateway has not been added yet, the affiliation system not fully active and centralized exchanges still not integrated and holding funds of many users.

My guess is people are stressing because they thought CCEDK would be the frontend and run on top of OpenLedger, which would also have many other exchanges running on top of it with the merged orderbooks. However they currently see CCEDK and OpenLedger as separated entities which are not related. I think a post from you explaining you're in the process of transferring CCEDK to OpenLedger could ease some minds. An example of that would be OPENDOGE:BTS market I think.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2015, 02:46:04 pm »
But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
They do not do it that way because bm's design and sells pitch promised them fees from running their own tokens. So it will continue to be like that until THE MARKET shows them that this is unreasonable and people want BTC to bitBTC direct conversion, as it is the only way that makes sense from their point of view.

So in more practical terms the exchanges will either switch to that model and find other ways to make money or will just holding on to the token model making their fees on no volume (aka not making  fees because of tiny volumes )
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2015, 03:16:39 pm »
But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.
They do not do it that way because bm's design and sells pitch promised them fees from running their own tokens. So it will continue to be like that until THE MARKET shows them that this is unreasonable and people want BTC to bitBTC direct conversion, as it is the only way that makes sense from their point of view.

So in more practical terms the exchanges will either switch to that model and find other ways to make money or will just holding on to the token model making their fees on no volume (aka not making  fees because of tiny volumes )
I totally agree here. An exchange running on bitshares can still make their profit from being a gateway from bitbtc to btc which would be pretty same thing as a regular centralized exchange that requires a percentage for withdrawals

The only reason to use ious instead would be legal concerns .. thats why i wonder why we now see OLBTC IOUs and not see bitbtc directly there even though ronny told me they would have direct conversion some time ago .. I am pretty confused :(
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline GaltReport

Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2015, 03:27:11 pm »
As a basic user, I used the blocktrades gateway once or twice (I assume openledger works similarly) until I decided that It was too cumbersome.  The last thing I want to do after using a "gateway" is to have to sell something again (TRADE BTC) in yet another market to finally get what I want.  The only "gateways" that make sense for me are things like metaexchange.info which go directly into your BTS account.

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2015, 07:44:14 pm »
My guess is people are stressing because they thought CCEDK would be the frontend and run on top of OpenLedger, which would also have many other exchanges running on top of it with the merged orderbooks. However they currently see CCEDK and OpenLedger as separated entities which are not related. I think a post from you explaining you're in the process of transferring CCEDK to OpenLedger could ease some minds. An example of that would be OPENDOGE:BTS market I think.

This. I'm a bit confused too... it was communicated that the exchange would move on chain, not offer Gateways. I thought gateways were the first step, but it looks like it'll end there?

Offline Pheonike

Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2015, 07:59:55 pm »


Looks like META has the proper model for the current form of the DEX.  The META/Shapeshift model seems to be the one that will flourish under the DEX. It one step and less confusing.


Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2015, 09:08:33 pm »
many people - many visions - more views!

- the UIA is good to transfer without high fees or spread into bitshares
- the bitAssets have to be created, so if no assets available no one can buy them - the advantage is clearly no counterparty risk besides wrong feedprices!

- the gateways can not make money if they are trading bitassets so where is the incentive for this?

if we could come up with something that all the fees collected in a bitassets goes to some accounts it would be different. lets say openledger, blocktrades, metaexchange can convert all the tokens outside of bitshares into internal tokens. say bitBTC:BTC, then with some "magic" this Gateways can make money from the fees from the internal bitAsset markets as well, but i dont know how this could be achieved with
the current design.

Offline noisy

Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2015, 09:21:45 pm »
Quote
- the gateways can not make money if they are trading bitassets so where is the incentive for this?

This is not true. As far as I understand gateways (like metaexchange/shapesift) earn money not by fees, but thanks to spread.

I describe here, how in my opinion gateways should work: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19652.0.html
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2015, 12:16:40 am »
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2015, 01:03:17 am »
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

nope... the fake liquidity bot is keeping the same volumes, while the polo volume is going down. That's all.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2015, 08:33:56 am »
CCEDK is now about 25% of Poloniex's volume:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets

If that was integrated with the OPENBTC orderbook, CCEDK's volume would basically double from all the people like me on the forums who are dying to use a blockchain market with some liquidity.

yeah, I've been seriously considering OPENBTC myself.
use of OPENBTC helps Bitshares and CCEDK.
helping CCEDK helps boost the OBITS value, and so on.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat