What's the biggest bottleneck of our internal exchange?

[Tuck Fheman]

Some of you "but muh fees!!!" guys come into this thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19787.msg254090.html#msg254090 and voice your opinions.

It cost 1,000 BTS to edit a UIA. Where's da outrage?! 


Never mind. Dan said we can change it.

[tonyk]

I made a fair number of trades on 1.0 (and hence,  I am guessing, large number of private keys). I have not yet migrated to 2.0 since I lack the necessary confidence that I can do so successfully/safely/and privately. I am thus awaiting the dust of the new release to settle enough for me to migrate with confidence before I can begin trading again.

Actually trading is not the main reason for a lot of  keys.

I had 484 pages of transactions on v0.x. [at 18 trx per page or something]
they imported for 2-3 min...some people are waiting for days

As for the privacy...well...BTS 2.0 is a public bathroom with bay windows.

aka  don't import all your keys to the onceuponatime account, is my advice.




484 pages of trx

[onceuponatime]

I made a fair number of trades on 1.0 (and hence,  I am guessing, large number of private keys). I have not yet migrated to 2.0 since I lack the necessary confidence that I can do so successfully/safely/and privately. I am thus awaiting the dust of the new release to settle enough for me to migrate with confidence before I can begin trading again.

[clayop]

the fees are far from being the main problem for liquidity.

When liquidity problem is solved, people will complain about high trading fees.

[Tuck Fheman]

the fees are far from being the main problem for liquidity.

[tonyk]

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

I do believe you are barking at the wrong tree here jakub [as well as other low fees proponents]. Yes some fees are unnecessary high - I do have my own list of them but if the fees were 0.1 BTS for trade and 0.5 BTS for transfer we would have had just a fraction more trades and liquidity (as well as transfers).

@tonyk, as you probably know, I am a strong supporter of keeping the transfer fees unchanged.

But in this context I am talking about the marker order fees.
For me liquidity is an absolute priority, even if it means the BitShares DAC becomes unprofitable in the short term.
So if the trading bot people say they need lower fees to be attracted - I'm ready to please them.

If you read my post I am pro lowering some fees [even more pro making them 'smarter'  - as in percentage fees, getting back large % of order placement fees for unfilled orders etc.] ...all I said was - the fees are far from being the main problem for liquidity.

[tbone]

Guys, let's be smart about this. 

Transfer fees
High transfer fees will not help profitability very much, but WILL hurt perception, may create a barrier to use (especially in some parts of the world), and will hurt the business models of some who are currently building on top of the Bitshares platform (as some known business builders here have attested).  So let's make sure to set transfer rates to very reasonable levels.

Trading fees
On the other hand, trading fees can make up a substantial portion of profitable fees, and at the same time it's unlikely that lowering them will substantially increase trading.  However, the order cancellation fee will cause major perception problems and it should be lowered to spam prevention levels for ALL users.

Trading fees / Liquidity
Also, perhaps our biggest problem right now is liquidity.  We need to incentivize liquidity providers, therefore I think we should consider using a maker/taker model where makers get a substantial discount on fees, especially if they do high volume. 

Liquidity / fragmented markets
But more importantly, we need to solve the problem of fragmented markets negating the pooled liquidity effect.  I realize there are reasons why each participating exchange has their own tokens.  But from the user's perspective, this multiple token system causes nothing but confusion in addition to the inferior trading experience due to the fragmented liquidity.  If this does not get fixed, we all lose including the OpenLedger participant exchanges.  Fortunately, I'm pretty sure they can put their heads together and find a way to use unified tokens that satisfies all parties.  We need to push for this.  CCEDK, MetaExchange, BlockTradesUS, BunkerDEX, have any of you discussed this? 

GUI Issues (favorite markets management)
Also, although the trading GUI has been improving, it still needs work.  Right now the management of favorite markets is a huge mess.  I'm pretty sure this can be improved dramatically without much dev time at all, someone just needs to specify what it should look like.  This issue may seem trivial, but we MUST make it so people can focus on the markets they are interested in, easily switch between them, and hide the rest. Otherwise there's just too much noise and clutter, and people feel lost.  Perhaps by default only the most liquid markets should be visible.  Then people can customize as they see fit. 

GUI Issues (privacy features)
Finally, I think not having the privacy features is a big barrier right now.  We need that in the GUI ASAP.  Does anyone have an ETA for that?  Actually, we need a more comprehensive roadmap.  Not necessarily precise timelines for everything.  But at least a list of all planned features and their current order of priority.  Perhaps estimated time to completion for the highest priority items.  And we should know what is currently already in the works.

@bytemaster - can you provide this information ASAP?

[jakub]

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

I do believe you are barking at the wrong tree here jakub [as well as other low fees proponents]. Yes some fees are unnecessary high - I do have my own list of them but if the fees were 0.1 BTS for trade and 0.5 BTS for transfer we would have had just a fraction more trades and liquidity (as well as transfers).

@tonyk, as you probably know, I am a strong supporter of keeping the transfer fees unchanged.

But in this context I am talking about the marker order fees.
For me liquidity is an absolute priority, even if it means the BitShares DAC becomes unprofitable in the short term.
So if the trading bot people say they need lower fees to be attracted - I'm ready to please them.

[cube]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

That explains a lot. So both the fees and the unfinished API are the main culprits.

So we can conclude that there is no liquidity because there cannot be any liquidity in those circumstances.
For me it's good news because I can see a rational explanation for the current situation.

 

  to remove the obstacles to liquidity bots - high trading fees and lack of api.

[Brekyrself]

I'm still trying to wrap my head about the whole web wallet concept with cookies etc... thus why I have not imported my 0.9x wallet.  Additionally the light wallet crashes and won't open.  So now I believe the only option I have is to run a full node and point the light wallet to it once I get that to work?  I believe this is more secure compared to using hosted wallets?

[BTSdac]

two reasons
1. lack of user
2. lack of assets to exchange .

[Tuck Fheman]

Yes some fees are unnecessary high

Add 1,000 BTS to edit a UIA to the list.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

I do believe you are barking at the wrong tree here jakub [as well as other low fees proponents]. Yes some fees are unnecessary high - I do have my own list of them but if the fees were 0.1 BTS for trade and 0.5 BTS for transfer we would have had just a fraction more trades and liquidity (as well as transfers).

 

[speedy]

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

Price feed relative orders is also a way to get liquidity. See my other thread.

[tonyk]

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

I do believe you are barking at the wrong tree here jakub [as well as other low fees proponents]. Yes some fees are unnecessary high - I do have my own list of them but if the fees were 0.1 BTS for trade and 0.5 BTS for transfer we would have had just a fraction more trades and liquidity (as well as transfers).

[clayop]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

That explains a lot. So both the fees and the unfinished API are the main culprits.

So we can conclude that there is no liquidity because there cannot be any liquidity in those circumstances.
For me it's good news because I can see a rational explanation for the current situation.

[roadscape]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

cancel_order should be in the latest release!
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/pull/424

Not sure about querying open orders..

[Empirical1.2]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

That explains a lot. So both the fees and the unfinished API are the main culprits.

So we can conclude that there is no liquidity because there cannot be any liquidity in those circumstances.
For me it's good news because I can see a rational explanation for the current situation.

 

[jakub]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

That explains a lot. So both the fees and the unfinished API are the main culprits.

So we can conclude that there is no liquidity because there cannot be any liquidity in those circumstances.
For me it's good news because I can see a rational explanation for the current situation.

[Xeldal]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

There are no bots because the API is incomplete.  Last I checked you can not cancel an order via API nor can you query your open orders.  Thats a pretty essential feature for any bot.

[jakub]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!

That was an indirect conclusion.
The poll results show that the main bottleneck is liquidity. But to have liquidity we need trading bots. And to have good working conditions for the bots we need low fees.
So the fees seem to be the primary reason.

[btswolf]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied
So lowering the trading fees is the key here.

I don't see a majority in your poll that says the fees are too high?!


If you want me to trade on the DEX I need the following things, sorted by priority:

• Privacy (Stealth Accounts/Transfers per default)
• Keep it sweet and simple (self-explanatory and at least midrange class UI)
• Liquidity
• FIAT Gateway
• Make me feel I'm a Customer 'customer is king' (Support)

I have not yet claimed my main BTS1.0 stake cause of privacy concerns and the poor UI experience so far.
I also bought some BTS via Poloniex but I'm not gonna withdraw them until the reasons above are fixed.
- Well if Polo gets Goxed I'll lose some of my stake but I'm lazy and at the moment I trust Polo more than my own security measures to protect my OpenLedger wallet.
I don't trade often but if I do - I don't care much about fees as long as they are not impertinently high.
- I think if someone wants lower fees than the standard fees s/he should be able to buy a Flatrate or Premium package, like the annual or lifetime subscription.

So far I think BitShares 2.0 does not offer much more incentives to use it than 0.9 did.
BUT the foundation and ecosystem seems solid, fast and scalable enough for future improvements, that's why I'm still buying and holding till I'm dead or rich.

[Ben Mason]

I am not a trader, nor am I a developer though I think I have a firm enough grasp of the concepts to attempt to contribute in certain areas. I've not yet imported my private keys to Graphene because I've not had time but I've recently helped a few of my friends to do so. They are not traders and have the barest understanding of blockchain's potential and only my enthusiasm for Bitshares as a corruption resistant dex and incredible bitasset products to get them involved. To a man they found the process of upgrading and  finding information stressful. They were only confident that what they were doing was not compromising their BTS because I was there to help and offer encouragement. The vast majority of people and businesses need simplicity. They care about the incredible things that blockchains can do, but only on a superficial level at the moment. I had hoped to integrate Bitshares into my vape business, using product discounts to incentivise referrals. Unfortunately, I'm only a minor partner and although the main partners are interested, the whole thing seemed too complex and risky for them at this time. I fully intend to change their minds though!

So the liquidity problem from my perspective is a lack of simple tools for people and businesses. A lag in the number of existing BTS holders claiming their BTS in the Graphene client. A lack of demand for normal value retention or non-trading purposes. A lag in centralised exchanges updating to Graphene. Finally, everyone, especially the traders at the moment need to want to utilise the Bitshares dex.....for all the reasons we know very well. I hope this perspective helps.

I just wanted to add that in my opinion, CNX had it absolutely right to expend their resources ensuring the engine was top notch. The responsibility lies with us to support those making moves to build out the next layers of development, partnerships, investment and marketing.

[Empirical1.2]

With all the new money flowing into BTC there will be corrections, crashes and profit taking, this is when the opportunity for BitAssets will present itself.

The best thing we can do now is create 'An idiots guide to trading BitAssets' (With pictures)

I also still think we need an internal market maker for BitUSD and BitCNY, even if the spread is REALLY wide.  People need confidence that they can exit easily even if they take a fairly big hit.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/
Why not make a post on How Stuff Works? Add pictures and explanations on how a person can make a legitimate profit using BitAssets.

Yeah looks good. Or even just  a guide to 'buying & selling' instead of 'trading.' I think people just want a safe place to store value at times without leaving crypto even if costs them a little.

[jakub]

But committee proposal cannot be accepted until BM agrees with it or we have enough (over 130M) votes.

It's hard for me to imagine BM won't agree.
Unless he'll prefer the BitShares DAC to be profitable but useless. In other words, profitable in the short term but making a loss in the long term.

[luckybit]

With all the new money flowing into BTC there will be corrections, crashes and profit taking, this is when the opportunity for BitAssets will present itself.

The best thing we can do now is create 'An idiots guide to trading BitAssets' (With pictures)

I also still think we need an internal market maker for BitUSD and BitCNY, even if the spread is REALLY wide.  People need confidence that they can exit easily even if they take a fairly big hit.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/
Why not make a post on How Stuff Works? Add pictures and explanations on how a person can make a legitimate profit using BitAssets.

[clayop]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied

So lowering the trading fees is the key here.
Why don't we have a committee proposal for that?

(In my case it's because committee proposals cannot are not supported in the GUI yet. But maybe someone more tech savvy will step up and save us)

Then we need a worker proposal for the trading bot.
And than we have liquidity and most of us are happy.

Yes 
But committee proposal cannot be accepted until BM agrees with it or we have enough (over 130M) votes.

[Tuck Fheman]

The best thing we can do now is create 'An idiots guide to trading BitAssets' (With pictures)

Step 1 : Buy High.

Step 2 : Sell Low.

[jakub]

The conclusion so far looks to me like this:
low fees -> trading bots -> liquidity -> most of us are satisfied

So lowering the trading fees is the key here.
Why don't we have a committee proposal for that?

(In my case it's because committee proposals cannot are not supported in the GUI yet. But maybe someone more tech savvy will step up and be our savior)

Then we need a worker proposal for the trading bot.
And then we have liquidity and most of us are happy.

[Empirical1.2]

With all the new money flowing into BTC there will be corrections, crashes and profit taking, this is when the opportunity for BitAssets will present itself.

The best thing we can do now is create 'An idiots guide to trading BitAssets' (With pictures)

I also still think we need an internal market maker for BitUSD and BitCNY, even if the spread is REALLY wide.  People need confidence that they can exit easily even if they take a fairly big hit.

[CLains]

Low liquidity + when I go explore -> markets and then click a market, the graph typically doesn't show up until I reclick a market. Segmenting low liquidity markets from the others will look better in the GUI.

[clayop]

IMHO,

1. Low liquidity -> Needs market making bots (but they like lower fees)
2. UX (getting better)
3. High fees compared to centralized exchanges (Someone don't care, but someone really care)

[jakub]

Let's find out.