The way how gateways should work.

[noisy]

In my opinion... for now you could add new column:

This would be the step in the right direction



BTW... I calculated current spread from screenshot manually (bitBTC <-> OPEN.BTC, bitBTC<->TRADE.BTC). This is spread which we have right now

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

So.. this is of interest to me because we are coming onboard soon to add to this mix. While I understand currently all roads currently are more like little dirt trails.. it was my understanding from much earlier forum discussions over the making of UIA/Smartcoin 2.0 that the idea was to make it an open market where the winner can take all.

So.. lets say all the current exchanges and gateways are not providing liquidity desired.. which is the crux of the issue. Along comes another exchange that creates their own version of BTC on the DEX again.. but with it they offer more competitive rates, collateralize, and along with it comes say 300 BTC of liquidity.

What will happen? Everyone will start using THAT as the point of entry.. and exit.. because ultimately, they brought to the system a more competitive offering.. It still happened all in the DEX so we still don't need to worry about getting goxed.. the other options that were dirt trails previously now look more like ant trails next to this 6 lane highway of liquidity. Ultimately the market is going to decide this.... and the one who brings to the network will be the winner "take all" .. at least until more competition comes along.

This is what I understood from previous discussions as what could/would happen in the new DEX.  There is absolutely nothing stopping other exchanges from providing pairs that use those assets.

Some of these could be for specific purposes as well.. so we can expect to continue to see multiple iterations of BTC or DOGE or DASH based on the owners given purposes that may not necessarily be just for serving a an exchange for others here.. but perhaps for some kind of apps that use these.

Now all I am saying in regards to winner take all is just what I recall being the stated possibility of a free market for anybody to create a better more liquid BTC or USD or CNY etc. I am not suggesting that this is how I would like to see it work.. I like to see more cooperation but not everyone is playing at the same level... so then things fall back to the competition mod where everyone is really promoting their own space.. which is fine.. if they are successful it means success for BitShares too.

I guess I just wanted to bring this up because this was what I had understood for a while, and maybe I misunderstood.. so please correct me if I am wrong.

[AdamBLevine]

Right now we have:

BTC, bitBTC, TRADE.BTC, OPEN.BTC... and every new gateway will produce new SOMETHING.BTC. From perspective of new user this is far too complicated.

But in my opinion this is not the worst part. The main problem with this approach will always be low liquidity. And this is not only my concern.
https://twitter.com/genxnotes/status/660845841565941760



In my opinion gateways should work more like (or exactly like) https://metaexchange.info/ or http://shapeshift.io/. As far as I know, metaexchange provide liquidity with their own funds, having in mind that they will generate profit thanks to spread.

From my perspective all gateways should be "end-to-end" (BTC<->bitBTC) and "single transfer" gateways. I should send my real BTC to address generated in my wallet , and this should cause that bitBTC will appear in my bitshares wallet. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY to have simple gateways. Otherwise they are yet another exchanges. And we have to remember, that if any exchange is based on User Issued Assets, they are always counterparty risk. This risk will be bigger if users will be tempted to keep their positions on SOMETHING.BTC:BTC orderbooks.

It sounds like what you want is Bitshares integrated into our Swapbot Multi-Token Vending Machine system.  You'd send in BTC and after two confirmations it'd send you back your bitBTC, which is also held in the vending machine.  Here's a similar example, privately operated going between BTC and Storj's token https://swapbot.tokenly.com/bot/cryptonaut/storj-buy-sell-bot#choose

I have a thread going over here talking about integration, feel free to weigh in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19647.0.html

[noisy]

What about autobridging to fix this problem?

Yes! This is that I am thinking about.

Or could the bitshares webwallet show a combined orderbook with the best prices for TRADE.BTC/OPENBTC against BTS?

I think user should be able to choose a partner. The price should not be the only factor.

[speedy]

Right now we have:

BTC, bitBTC, TRADE.BTC, OPEN.BTC... and every new gateway will produce new SOMETHING.BTC. From perspective of new user this is far too complicated.

But in my opinion this is not the worst part. The main problem with this approach will always be low liquidity. And this is not only my concern.
https://twitter.com/genxnotes/status/660845841565941760

Thinking out load here:

What about autobridging to fix this problem? Or could the bitshares webwallet show a combined orderbook with the best prices for TRADE.BTC/OPENBTC against BTS? As long as they are both backed by BTC then it doesnt matter which one you get matched with.

The poll needs a third option: "Not like it works now!!!"

[dannotestein]

If they don't have funds, they can crowdfund their buisness and create a UIA and offer a profit, exactly like metaexchage did recently with METAFEES

Well blocktrades supports both models, I think they both have advantages and disadvantages. Which brings me to my point for posting: making your poll an "either-or" proposition shows the problems once again of these polls...

[Shentist]

the idael part would be if every exchange could use the same UIA, but like above stated, you would have counterparty risk for the otherpartys and this could lead to a downfall to the whole system in the future.

- i feel at the moment bitshares could be the layer above all the exchanges going to use it and for the enduser it is nice, because you only need to have one wallet for many exchanges.

if you think that poloniex, bittrex, kraken etc. would be running on bitshares, you would not have this concerns, because they are coming with liquidity.

on metaexchange we are trying to solve this problem with providing our own market makers. we will add UIAs in the near future to our concept. we are adding fee sharing with METAFEES to our
model to raise more capital and give our investors incentive to talke and use us.

[noisy]

If they don't have funds, they can crowdfund their buisness and create a UIA and offer a profit, exactly like metaexchage did recently with METAFEES

[Akado]

I agree with this and I would like it to work this way, but the problem I see is having each gateway having enough funds to place as collateral to create bitBTC.

But I believe if metaexchange did it, others can too. Mainly if they follow their business model by contributing with liquidity and being rewarded with part of the fees.

From day one I wished every gateway would work like this.

[noisy]

Right now we have:

BTC, bitBTC, TRADE.BTC, OPEN.BTC... and every new gateway will produce new SOMETHING.BTC. From perspective of new user this is far too complicated.

But in my opinion this is not the worst part. The main problem with this approach will always be low liquidity. And this is not only my concern.
https://twitter.com/genxnotes/status/660845841565941760



In my opinion gateways should work more like (or exactly like) https://metaexchange.info/ or http://shapeshift.io/. As far as I know, metaexchange provide liquidity with their own funds, having in mind that they will generate profit thanks to spread.

From my perspective all gateways should be "end-to-end" (BTC<->bitBTC) and "single transfer" gateways. I should send my real BTC to address generated in my wallet , and this should cause that bitBTC will appear in my bitshares wallet. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY to have simple gateways. Otherwise they are yet another exchanges. And we have to remember, that if any exchange is based on User Issued Assets, they are always counterparty risk. This risk will be bigger if users will be tempted to keep their positions on SOMETHING.BTC:BTC orderbooks.