Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Awesome!

Very excited to have more features for BitShares to grow and increase profitability.

This is a great step forward.

[BTSdac]

I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

I notice two point
1. "under this proposal we would introduce a new parameter to assets that allows the issuer to configure different market fees for makers vs takers "
2. hard-fork
 if not block chain level ,why need to hard-fork
I think the block-chain protocol level should simple ,   I disagree  different fee between  makers vs takers

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• funnybear: has been credited 5 PERCENT

Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20482.msg264415/topicseen.html#msg264415

Created by hybridd

[mike623317]

For $300, let's just get it done.

Totally agree.

[Empirical1.2]

I like that the decision to apply it can be tried on a market by market basis.

If the market starts out small with $10K / 24hr volume, and then turns into a $30M 24/hr volume then the market fees of 0.2% will yield $30,000 per day, half of which would belong to the individual who provided a meer $10K of liquidity in the first year. Meanwhile those who provide $10K of liquidity once $30M of volume is reached will get a very small number of MSHARES

The percentage of market fees that are directed to repurchase MSHARES is a parameters that is set by the issuer. It may be increased, but never decreased.

Is there a risk that once $30M of volume is reached, the committee may choose to reduce the % of market fees given to the MSHARES programme or halt the programme now that it no longer incentivizes liquidity thus short-changing people who had provided initial liquidity with future expectations of receiving a higher %?

[donkeypong]

For $300, let's just get it done. 

[bytemaster]

just posted some questions on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

My main concern is the effect on BTS profitability and referral income. Does it mean that 80% of fees will go to the maker and 20% of fees will go to cryptonomex? Is this only for new UIAs? Will this also be for current committee issued smartcoins?
How will BTS profitability and referral income be affected?

I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

While Market Making is not done at the blockchain level, incentivizing it is. It is a fair question of whether or not this extra feature is something we want.

I attempted to answer your questions posted on the issue.  The mile high summary is that this feature in and of itself takes no profits away from the referral program nor BTS holders. It is only a reallocation of profits previously reserved to the issuer and completely at the discretion of the issuer to adopt or not.  BTS benefits from increased order creation fees and user adoption if the program works. 

Only if the committee managed assets adopt the feature would it impact the funds available to the committee and thus indirectly to the BTS holders. The committee would have to decide whether or not they thought it would be profitable to adopt this program for USD and CNY. 

[Thom]

just posted some questions on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

My main concern is the effect on BTS profitability and referral income. Does it mean that 80% of fees will go to the maker and 20% of fees will go to cryptonomex? Is this only for new UIAs? Will this also be for current committee issued smartcoins?
How will BTS profitability and referral income be affected?

I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

While Market Making is not done at the blockchain level, incentivizing it is. It is a fair question of whether or not this extra feature is something we want.

You raise some good questions. Another important issue related to how such features will effect referrals and trading is how will they affect the (currently few) exchanges that trade BTS? If we don't come up with a roadmap and schedule for all these hardforks we'll see exchanges that support BitShares dry up.

I know BM is well aware of the impact that hardforks have on the maintenance overhead seen by exchanges, so this just adds more pressure to hardfork more frequently. We need to publish a policy about hardforks and publish it widely, and gauge the crypto community's response to it and adjust it accordingly.

I don't know how the rate of hardforks will change, but conceivably pressure to release features may stimulate it, plus the need for hardforks to resolve emergency issues that could arise.

The policy should be something like:

Hardforks for the purpose of releasing FBA's will not be done more frequently than N times in a P period. BitShares will incorporate all other hardforks into the periodic hardfork schedule to the extent possible. Hardforks to address emergency issues will not be bound to a schedule but will be performed as necessary, with as much advance notice to all parties as possible.

[bytemaster]

just posted some questions on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

My main concern is the effect on BTS profitability and referral income. Does it mean that 80% of fees will go to the maker and 20% of fees will go to cryptonomex? Is this only for new UIAs? Will this also be for current committee issued smartcoins?
How will BTS profitability and referral income be affected?

I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

While Market Making is not done at the blockchain level, incentivizing it is. It is a fair question of whether or not this extra feature is something we want.

Currently BTS is not collecting income from market fees.  This would be an opt-in feature on a per-asset basis.  So the committee would have to decide whether or not paying for market makers improves the overall volume / transaction for BitShares.  CNX only gets 20% of what is paid to Market Makers.  This means the committee could say market makers only get 10% of trading fees, leaving CNX with just 2%.   Bottom line, CNX only gets paid if the feature is used and it doesn't have to be used.

[maqifrnswa]

just posted some questions on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

My main concern is the effect on BTS profitability and referral income. Does it mean that 80% of fees will go to the maker and 20% of fees will go to cryptonomex? Is this only for new UIAs? Will this also be for current committee issued smartcoins?
How will BTS profitability and referral income be affected?

I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

While Market Making is not done at the blockchain level, incentivizing it is. It is a fair question of whether or not this extra feature is something we want.

[theredpill]

Is a symbolic contract that allows CNX to be reward with future market fees 20% of all fees if I understand right.

I think we should do it, if CNX is willing to develop for free now to be compensated on fees later, this tell us a LOT in terms of if they have any doubt about succeeding.
Some conditions must be respected IMO:

1 - This cannot affect in any shape or form way the network functions.
2 - We have to find a way to compensate only the bests offers that STAYS on book by X period of time (the trigger is the match of order, but the reward is proportional of the TIME the order stayed)


Thats no doubt in my mind now if this network will be a great success, my shares are not for sell so soon :-)

[gn1]

100k bts is the cost for implementing the feature.

It is NOT the votes needed to be approved.

Okay, got it.

He made it sound like the hard fork plan will go through without stakeholder's voting, so I had to ask.
Thank you.

[Bhuz]

100k bts is the cost for implementing the feature.

It is NOT the votes needed to be approved.

[Tuck Fheman]

In the worker proposal, it says "If the proposal gets funded then it will be assumed that the required hardfork has been approved by stakeholders and development will compense."

What kind of rule is that? 100000BTS can be paid by one person, and a hard fork gets approved just like that by getting funded? That's so centralized.

95% of the people might not be even aware of this thread.

#sharebits "funnybear" 5 PERCENT

I'd give you a FISTBUMP but I think you own more than me at this point. 

[gn1]

In the worker proposal, it says "If the proposal gets funded then it will be assumed that the required hardfork has been approved by stakeholders and development will compense."

What kind of rule is that? 100000BTS can be paid by one person, and a hard fork gets approved just like that by getting funded? That's so centralized.

95% of the people might not be even aware of this thread.