Bolstering DEX Liquidity (previously my rant/opinion on Bitshares' DEX)

[Xypher]

An alternative, extremely ambitious approach
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20855.0.html

[Nagalim]

Not sure where you got the 7% from, fixed cost does not specify a rate but rather a cost ($/day, not %/day).
Edit:  this was disingenuous of me.  The 7% is correct, but only up to a specified limit at which competition drives down rates which makes the economics fundamentally different from saying a blanket 7%.  Fixed cost is the new model and will be adopted with the NuBot ALP upgrades.

We announce each week how many nbt are in circulation.  It's ~700k.  Coinmarketcap has a hard time accurately giving stats to Nu because we're doing things that haven't been done before.
https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-begin-nsr-buyback-immediately/2654/120

You are entitled to your opinion.  A lot of people think USD is unsustainable, yet here we are talking about pegging to it as a standard.  All Nu is democratic contracts enforced by a decentralized central banking system.  I'm sorry the success of literally 4000 years of economics to develop the concept of a banking system offends you so.

[chryspano]

In my biased opinion nubits are unsustainable and we should stay away from them, it is easy for them to "print" out of thin air the 7% that is required to pay their market makers but who is actually paying this fee? to me it's like a blockchain loan they can never pay back.

One question...How many nubits exist? coinmarketcap says 840,000 where did they got this number? the explorer lists 27,700,000 https://blockexplorer.nu/status  and 100 wealthiest addresses show something in between https://blockexplorer.nu/topNBTaddresses/1

[CoinHoarder]

I think you're still a little confused.  The bitusd will be held in a multisig reserve as a tier 4 fund, it will not be spent unless the nubit peg is in serious imminent danger and we've spent all our btc (you know, depending on how we actually end up specifying the terms of the bitusd reserve.  It'll be a zoology reserve, again for anyone keeping track).

You are right, my bad I still do not fully grasp how Nushares works and the terminology.

The providers will be paid in nbt.  For every nbt we give providers, this proposal would imply that the bitasset community owes Nushareholders 0.5 bitusd per nbt used.  These can be created using bts y'all print or whatever, it's not really my concern where you get your money from.  I'd suggest you print some fresh bts and lock it to make bitusd then give us the bitusd to Nu under the assumption that they probably won't even spend it.  Then you basically get free liquidity.  But again, not my concern.

I'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed.  Of course, there's going to be plenty of beaurocratic hurdles to overcome to get a proper contract written and passed on the Nu block chain, then there's the matter of the ALP bot upgrade not being ready yet.  So this whole concept may take time (months) to come to fruition, but I truly believe it would be a lucrative endeavor.

I agree that it sounds like it would be a win/win agreement. I wonder if there is enough support in the Bitshares and Nushares community to make it happen. I guess I will let others here voice their support or concern so we can judge the Bitshares community's opinion..

[Nagalim]

I think you're still a little confused.  The bitusd will be held in a multisig reserve as a tier 4 fund, it will not be spent unless the nubit peg is in serious imminent danger and we've spent all our btc (you know, depending on how we actually end up specifying the terms of the bitusd reserve.  It'll be a zoology reserve, again for anyone keeping track).

The providers will be paid in nbt.  For every nbt we give providers, this proposal would imply that the bitasset community owes Nushareholders 0.5 bitusd per nbt used.  These can be created using bts y'all print or whatever, it's not really my concern where you get your money from.  I'd suggest you print some fresh bts and lock it to make bitusd then give us the bitusd to Nu under the assumption that they probably won't even spend it.  Then you basically get free liquidity.  But again, not my concern.

I'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed.  Of course, there's going to be plenty of beaurocratic hurdles to overcome to get a proper contract written and passed on the Nu block chain, then there's the matter of the ALP bot upgrade not being ready yet.  So this whole concept may take time (months) to come to fruition, but I truly believe it would be a lucrative endeavor.

[CoinHoarder]

"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."

I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.

So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider.  The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers.  The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account.  They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.

The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day).  So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.  Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.

Thank you, I think I understand it better now. I understand now that we are paying for liquidity (at most $9 a day?) and not investing in the market making services themselves. Eventually the bitUSD funds will all be spent on Liquidity costs because there is a daily fee, so the bitUSD that will be provided upfront is pretty much a donation to the network to afford us more liquidity, correct?

The Bitshares shareholders would need to decide if having more bitUSD liquidity is worth the expense, and how would we fund the initiative? I can think of several different ways. As JonnyBitcoin mentioned we can use the reserve pool, we could create a worker proposal, or simply run the operations on donations (althoguh I'm not sure we would be able to raise enough via this method.)

[Nagalim]

"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."

I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.

So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider.  The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers.  The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account.  They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.

The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day).  So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.  Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.

[Empirical1.2]

So let's do a thought experiment:
BitAssets pays $5,000 to one liquidity provider.  For some reason we trust that provider with our funds (like a T3 trusted custodial grant for anyone keeping track) but let's ignore that for now.  So the provider puts up the funds as a sell order and they get bought.  Now the provider needs to do the arbitrage shuffle to get the funds back on exchange.  In the meantime, there is no liquidity.  The provider gets tired of doing this all the time and starts charging a premium.  This generates competition, but we're still just picking the best offer out of the ones on the table and almost invariably have to pay premium.  Then the exchange defaults and we lose all our money.  Welcome to the first 6 months of Nu.

We then developed automatic liquidity provision such that we can decentralize this process and lay the exchange default risks on the providers shoulders instead of the network.  Anyway, long story short, no matter what the costs for liquidity provision exist.  You say providers profit, but they take on risk and opportunity cost and their profit is well earned.  The network pays a little to get functionality, which brings in new money.  Economies are not a zero sum game, sometimes you gotta spend a little to grow the network.

I still don't get why there is no obvious incentive for the person(s) fronting the bitUSD (other than the value to the BTS token from the added liquidity.) Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD...

I just realize you run a liquidity pool for Nubits.. http://nupond.net/ ... right? I guess you know a lot more about this than I do, so maybe I am still misunderstanding something. Is the only benefit of people depositing into liquidity pools the added liquidity, and the pool pockets all interest? I am interested in continuing this conversation because liquidity is a major problem with Smartcoins and the Bitshares DEX.

I don't know but as a guess, I would say I think liquidity increases demand for NuBits, so  NuShares holders are incentivised to create NuBits to pay for these liquidity services. As NuBits can just be created without backing, shareholders only have to balance the costs with the risks that at some point more NuBits will be sold in a short space of time than there is demand and reserves for and thus break their peg.

[Empirical1.2]

I was also not a fan of NuBits and think it will at some time come unstuck but the volume is pretty good and I was impressed that they paid out over $400 000 in dividends to shareholders over the last year representing a 25% yield to NuShares shareholders.
[...]
Do any people who follow NuBits more know how much the market makers need to be subsidized?

So far the track record of Nu is ok for the first year. February 2015 and the months after that were bad because Nu lost a lot of money due to exchange defaults. Back then the liquidity providing was done with funds that Nu owned and handed over to custodians to provide the market with liquidity.

This model has been reworked and now Nu pays for market makers who provide liquidity with their own funds.
The average monthly revenue for market makers is approximately 7%. That seems big, but apart from the exchange default risk it needs to compensate BTC volatility (the main trading pair is still NBT/BTC, although USD/NBT and CNY/NBT are available as well).
These 7% are paid by Nu up to a maximum volume (some tens of thousands USD value each side all exchanges combined, Poloniex has the biggest volume: https://alix.coinerella.com/walls/?).
A dutch auction model kicks in if the liquidity volume is above that threshold and reduces the effective interest.

This is speaking of the so-called ALP (automated liquidity pool) where a custodian operates a server software and liquidity providers provide funds with ALP clients. They stay in full control over the funds as the ALP client puts orders via exchange API and reports them to the ALP server, which credits them each minute. The money never leaves the exchange account of the liquidity provider (unless stolen, etc.; it might just get converted of the orders get filled)

A second way to provide liquidity is via MLP (managed liquidity pool). In this version a liquidity provider uses NuBot to place orders. The funds are under direct control of the NuBot operator.

For more information on liquidity providing have a look here: http://docs.nubits.com/liquidity-pools/

There are a lot of changes on the road map.
The ALP and MLP software are currently being merged and will in the future be based on NuBot (https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubottrading/src/master/docs/SETUP.md).
The reward scheme will be changed to a fixed compensation scheme where x NBT are paid per side and liquidity providers fight over the compensation. That is expected to have some advantages over the dutch auction model as it makes providing liquidity especially attractive (in terms of interest) if the order sizes on the book are small for whatever reason.
This is expected to help the money flow between the different tiers (of Nu's tiered liquidity model), different exchanges, because it incentivizes tracking wall sizes to put orders preferred at exchanges with low order volume.
The motion regarding the tiered liquidity model: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/finalized-evolution-of-liquidity-operations/618
An interpretation of it: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/interpretation-of-the-liquidity-tiers-a-waterfall-model-triggers-metrics-and-actions/2914
The begining of the ALP: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/trust-less-liquidity-pool/1686 (back then called "trustless liquidity pool")

This might sound confusing, has a lot of links and I bet I used some words that are not really self-explanatory. Sorry for that. But the liquidity providing is a quite complex area if you are interested in the inner workings and one of Nu's important functions.
If you just want to make some money providing liquidity, it can be as easy as sending funds to the major MLP "Nulagoon" (http://nulagoon.com/lqpools.html) or downloading and configuring an ALP client.
If you have questions that are not answered here (because I think not too many from the Nu community are frequently here), feel free to ask at https://discuss.nubits.com/!

  Thanks very much for taking the time to give such a detailed response.

As you say it is a bit confusing to me at first glance but I'll try wrap my head around it, I'm sure guys like BM & other forum members will understand it better & find the info very useful.

What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

I don't believe bitusd will ever have liquidity on real exchanges if all market making happens on the virtual exchange.  What I propose is fundamentally different from all the market maker approaches this community has put up because it will create real liquidity instead of just more inbred trading on the virtual exchange amongst bitasset holders.  Bitasset holders are not your target group, merchants and general adoption is.  You want people using bitusd that don't even really know what bitassets are.

Yes, make a bunch of smartcoins.  Then give them to Nu and let us provide liquidity for you.

I think I probably agree that unless we can incentivise market making on popular exchanges, BitAssets will struggle to gain traction.

[CoinHoarder]

So let's do a thought experiment:
BitAssets pays $5,000 to one liquidity provider.  For some reason we trust that provider with our funds (like a T3 trusted custodial grant for anyone keeping track) but let's ignore that for now.  So the provider puts up the funds as a sell order and they get bought.  Now the provider needs to do the arbitrage shuffle to get the funds back on exchange.  In the meantime, there is no liquidity.  The provider gets tired of doing this all the time and starts charging a premium.  This generates competition, but we're still just picking the best offer out of the ones on the table and almost invariably have to pay premium.  Then the exchange defaults and we lose all our money.  Welcome to the first 6 months of Nu.

We then developed automatic liquidity provision such that we can decentralize this process and lay the exchange default risks on the providers shoulders instead of the network.  Anyway, long story short, no matter what the costs for liquidity provision exist.  You say providers profit, but they take on risk and opportunity cost and their profit is well earned.  The network pays a little to get functionality, which brings in new money.  Economies are not a zero sum game, sometimes you gotta spend a little to grow the network.

I still don't get why there is no obvious incentive for the person(s) fronting the bitUSD (other than the value to the BTS token from the added liquidity.) Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD...

I just realize you run a liquidity pool for Nubits.. http://nupond.net/ ... right? I guess you know a lot more about this than I do, so maybe I am still misunderstanding something. Is the only benefit of people depositing into liquidity pools the added liquidity and the pool pockets all interest? Perhaps that is my misunderstanding.. I am interested in continuing this conversation because liquidity is a major problem with Smartcoins and the Bitshares DEX.

[CoinHoarder]

I'm going to change the name of the thread to DEX liquidity discussions as that is the way the conversation has shifted.

What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

Yes, I think it would certainly help. However, I think we need to pursue all possible avenues of increasing liquidity because that is the main issue with the DEX right now.

we need to use the reserve pool as collateral to create a bunch of smartcoin to help liquidity.

I like this idea, we would just need to garner shareholder support. What do you think the pros and cons would be of using this money in the way you proposed in your thread versus using the money in the way Nagalim is proposing? I am thinking Nagalim's proposal provides more liquidity, but there is more risk involved with his proposal than with your proposal.

(reference: Jonny's thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20836.0.html)

[Nagalim]

So let's do a thought experiment:
BitAssets pays $5,000 to one liquidity provider.  For some reason we trust that provider with our funds (like a T3 trusted custodial grant for anyone keeping track) but let's ignore that for now.  So the provider puts up the funds as a sell order and they get bought.  Now the provider needs to do the arbitrage shuffle to get the funds back on exchange.  In the meantime, there is no liquidity.  The provider gets tired of doing this all the time and starts charging a premium.  This generates competition, but we're still just picking the best offer out of the ones on the table and almost invariably have to pay premium.  Then the exchange defaults and we lose all our money.  Welcome to the first 6 months of Nu.

We then developed automatic liquidity provision such that we can decentralize this process and lay the exchange default risks on the providers shoulders instead of the network.  Anyway, long story short, no matter what the costs for liquidity provision exist.  You say providers profit, but they take on risk and opportunity cost and their profit is well earned.  The network pays a little to get functionality, which brings in new money.  Economies are not a zero sum game, sometimes you gotta spend a little to grow the network.

[CoinHoarder]

You say it's risky for the bts holders fronting the bitUSD and say nothing about the shareholders fronting nbt.

True, my bad... whomever is fronting the Nubits also has risk.

You need to understand that liquidity costs money.  You try to 'solve' the cost of liquidity by widening the peg and you end up right back where you started.  If your network can't put up a couple dollars a day for a working product, what good is you whatever a million marketcap?

Ya'll will learn sooner or later that liquidity provision is about opportunity cost and you need to reward liquidity providers with a portion of your marketcap if you want a tight peg.

So.. in your proposed deal only the liquidity provider makes a profit, is that correct? In that case I'm having trouble understanding why we couldn't fund the purchase of the NBT and the bitUSD and be the liquidity provider ourselves. It would help negate the risks of fronting the money and provide incentive for people to do so. That may be the only way that this would be feasible... unless the money is raised by a worker proposal, or by the fees that are already locked on the chain (those options would of course require everyone to be on board with it).

I feel like I must still be missing something in the deal you are proposing?

[Nagalim]

I don't think shareholders want to store TUSD in T4 reserves because of the centralization.  A service like NuVault is much better than something like tether or tusd because when things do hit the fan and the centralized third party fails, at least with NuVault we have the BKS collateral to sell.
Without shareholder support, this is dead in the water.  It basically would devolve into privately funded liquidity operations, getting all the costs without any of the flair that Nu has.  The software is open source, anyone can write a wrapper and run it.  However, at that point using a US-NBT/TUSD market is unnecessary and you might as well just do TUSD/BTC and reinvent tusd as a centralized nbt knockoff.

[Samupaha]

What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

I don't believe bitusd will ever have liquidity on real exchanges if all market making happens on the virtual exchange.  What I propose is fundamentally different from all the market maker approaches this community has put up because it will create real liquidity instead of just more inbred trading on the virtual exchange amongst bitasset holders.  Bitasset holders are not your target group, merchants and general adoption is.  You want people using bitusd that don't even really know what bitassets are.

Yes, make a bunch of smartcoins.  Then give them to Nu and let us provide liquidity for you.

Yeah, I get what you mean. I was mostly interested if the incentive program will be any good or just useless. Seems to me a good way to get things started and then provide a reasonable incentive to grow the markets bigger to get full benefit of potential profits.

Don't know if you already noticed but we have now also the TUSD, which is a privatized market pegged asset. Maybe @bitcrab is interested in cooperation to provide TUSD/NuUSD markets?

[Akado]

we need to use the reserve pool as collateral to create a bunch of smartcoin to help liquidity.

Isn't that similar to what @monsterer suggested in the past? Making the blockchain a market maker? We could have a worker proposal where X BTS from the pool would be locked in as collateral to create bitAssets. Could this make OpenLedger and others start using bitAssets instead of UIA? That way we would have shared order books which would be so much better than each exchange having their own UIA

[Nagalim]

What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

I don't believe bitusd will ever have liquidity on real exchanges if all market making happens on the virtual exchange.  What I propose is fundamentally different from all the market maker approaches this community has put up because it will create real liquidity instead of just more inbred trading on the virtual exchange amongst bitasset holders.  Bitasset holders are not your target group, merchants and general adoption is.  You want people using bitusd that don't even really know what bitassets are.

Yes, make a bunch of smartcoins.  Then give them to Nu and let us provide liquidity for you.

[JonnyB]

we need to use the reserve pool as collateral to create a bunch of smartcoin to help liquidity.

[Samupaha]

What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

[Randomaniac]

Ya'll will learn sooner or later that liquidity provision is about opportunity cost and you need to reward liquidity providers with a portion of your marketcap if you want a tight peg.

Liquidity provision is an investment and any investment should have a positive ROI.
If the investment in liquidity provision pans out, it will rather increase the market cap than cost a share of it - at least long-term.
This investment is what increases the value of the product and hence the value of the corporation producing it.

edit: one might say that you can't afford not spending that money ;-)

[Nagalim]

@Randomaniac Thanks for that... it was a very informative post. I am starting to wrap my head around Nushares. This was also very helpful: https://docs.nubits.com/history/

So I made this proposal the last time y'all started getting friendly and I was told you have no product to sell and I should come back after 2.0 comes out when you'll have a 'real product'.  So do you have a real product now?  Wanna hear the offer?

So we get an exchange to put up an nbt/bitUSD pair.  Then, bitAssets hands Nu bitUSD evaluated at $1 each.  Nu then puts up a fixed cost ALP operation on only the nbt buy side for that pair (we can pocket the costs for bot development).  Then, we share the fixed cost between the projects, such that bitAssets pays $0.5 bitUSD for every NBT that we hand out in that liquidity operation.

The real trick is finding the price feed.  It's probably going to be something like $1.1, which is still overpriced, but at least you'll start getting liquidity on the books.  As BitUSD becomes a more stable product, y'all will have a wonderful lesson in liquidity provision as you try to figure out what spread and price feed to use for real-time live-market tracking.

This isn't a proposal to add virtual liquidity, like all the market maker proposals going around in this community.  This will generate real liquidity on a real exchange for BitUSD sell side and NBT buy side, both will benefit.

I like this idea, but I see it as being a risky proposal for whoever fronts the bitUSD for the proposal. First of all, we would need to find someone willing to front a decent amount of bitUSD with no incentive. Technically, there is a little incentive in that if he also owned BTS tokens, then the bitUSD SmartCoin would be more liquid, and thus the BTS tokens more valuable. In this scenario all stakeholders profit off of the risk one person took. This doesn't really seem fair to the person(s) (ideally it would be more than one, but in the example I use one person) fronting the bitUSD.

I like where you're going, but unless I am missing something there is a benefit for Nushares/Nubits/BitUSD/BTS shareholders and all of the risk lies upon the shoulders of the person frontign the bitUSD. bitUSD need to be shorted into existence and bought on the market, so it's not like we can print them and "freeroll" the liquidity operation. How could we tweak your business proposition to make it worth the risk for someone to front the bitUSD (specifically a benefit to the person(s) that front the bitUSD. Raising the money would not be a problem- I see a UIA or a FBA doing that easily, but it seems risky for the party fronting the bitUSD with little incentive specifically for them.

I am still of the opinion it would be better for Bitshares to make its own version of Nubits/Nushares directly on the Bitshares chain. However, it seems your proposal would be much easier to implement and will bring benefits to all communities of shareholders (Nubits/Nushares/bitUSD/Bitshares) from their pegged assets being more liquid. That would at least be a good starting point until enough consensus can be reached (if that is indeed possible...) in the community to integrate these features on chain.

EDIT: One way to provide incentive to the person(s) fronting the bitUSD is to widen the peg, so instead of $1.10 the peg would be set at $1.13, and then instead of giving $0.50 bitUSD back to the person that fronted the bitUSD, you give back $0.53. What do you think about that? I think if there was a decent incentive the bitUSD could be raised easily.. and very quickly.

You say it's risky for the bts holders fronting the bitUSD and say nothing about the shareholders fronting nbt.  You need to understand that liquidity costs money.  You try to 'solve' the cost of liquidity by widening the peg and you end up right back where you started.  If your network can't put up a couple dollars a day for a working product, what good is you whatever a million marketcap?

Ya'll will learn sooner or later that liquidity provision is about opportunity cost and you need to reward liquidity providers with a portion of your marketcap if you want a tight peg.

[Randomaniac]

@Randomaniac Thanks for that... it was a very informative post. I am starting to wrap my head around Nushares. This was also very helpful: https://docs.nubits.com/history/

I'm glad you found the post helpful. I was trying to focus on liquidity providing and even that would have required so much more text. https://docs.nubits.com/history/ is indeed a valuable pool of information, but hasn't been updated for some time.
If you have any specific questions about Nu, please ask or dig in the nubits forum.

Combining strengths of BitShares and Nu would be great. @Nagalim's proposal seems to lead in a good direction. Would be valuable to follow that road and find a scheme that benefits BitShares and Nu!

[CoinHoarder]

I organized your post so it is easier to respond to. 

This is the most flattering thread I've seen for Nu on this forum, One year ago Nu was a ponzi scheme, horrible economics, disaster waiting to happen... on and on. (I mean it could be a disaster waiting to happen... who knows.) Now I arrive at this thread. I mean it's literally at the point where someone is suggesting to merge the design of Nu and B&C into the project and the responses are like "great idea!". We haven't really had to market Nu. I think we put out our first paid ads for NuBits on The Daily Decrypt just a couple weeks ago. That's it for paid marketing as far as I'm aware and it took us a year to get there. The project focuses mainly on results. I can promise you though if you guys decided to start following the implementation of Nu and B&C it will be the best free marketing we could ever ask for. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

First of all, not many people in the community have responded to this thread. There is probably little supports for merging Nushares/Nubits' design into Bitshares. I think a deal such that Nagalim is proposing is more realistic. Bitshares is not a complete failure, it has many benefits Nushares/Nubits/Peercoin do not have. Although Nubits has more liquidity than bitUSD, SmartCoins have other advantages such as leveraged trading, collateral, and it is much easier to trade different types of assets (BTC, GOLD, etc.) Furthermore, SmartCoins are only a small subset of what gives Bitshares its value. I'm not going to elaborate, but read through the pages here and you will understand what I mean: https://bitshares.org/technology/

It may be good marketing for Nushares/B&C if their features were implemented in Bitshares, but I still see Bitshares winning that war because it would have the features from both SmartCoins and Nushares/Nubits. I think the technologies combined are much better than them existing on their own. Thus, I see it being better for Bitshares in the long run unless Nushares/Nubits also integrates SmartCoin-like assets.

How does anyone expect investors to have any faith in BitShares if you guys have to pivot every nine months? What has this project consistently done well with since launch?  That's genuinely an honest question. I would like to know. My impression is the project tries to do everything, and because of that nothing gets done well. When is BitShares going to decide to focus on doing one thing really well?  I don't have a deep understanding of the project but I like to come by here and catch up on happenings. There's no real product focus. There will be no community or vision to stand on if the project doesn't have legs. I think the future of BitShares would be brighter by finding a real identity. Not through the community but through the product. I'm not really sure what this project is trying to do, and I don't think i'm alone there.

Bitshares is inherently chaotic by nature. At first we tried separate chains like you guys, but we found that there were benefits to combining the chains (something I supported since the beginning). Bitshares embraces innovation of all types and is not focused on a single industry, thus there are many opinions of what direction the project should and shouldn't go. The chaos is interesting because there's always something new to talk about. Some people see this as a weakness as you can see in the latest DEX vs MAS debate, but I see this as Bitshares' strength.... If it had not innovated in many different areas, IMO it would not be at where it is today (a top 10 market cap coin). The DEX, although functional, has not been a wild success due to low volume and liquidity, and thus Bitshares is really relying on the existence of those other innovations to support its value. The value of the BTS token would be much worse off if Bitshares was only simply a DEX. You are certainly right though as you said. As evidenced by recent debates you are not alone in thinking Bitshares needs to become a master in something or else it risks being average at everything.

Just wanted to leave some thoughts since this is a very strange thread to see on here. The BitShares community is much larger than Nu, and it has some really great members. It's why I like to come lurk.

I only have a small percentage of my cryptofolio invested in Bitshares, and thus I feel like I am more objective than some of the forum users that are heavily invested in Bitshares on here.  All of my ALT investments (of which I own many different coins/securities... mainly only innovative projects) are pretty evenly split to hedge the risks with most of my portfolio in Bitcoin/Litecoin because of network effects. Maybe I am just stupid/delusional/crazy... OK, I know I am at least a little crazy because I prefer studying cryptocurrencies than talking to human beings. 

I like to come here too even though I am not a large Bitshares investor, because there are a lot of smart people around these forums and there are usually interesting threads going on. Bitcointalk is just spam, shills, and trolls nowadays. I like to come here to vent, post ideas, and share my opinion on different things. I'm not sure anyone ever reads what I write, but I enjoy doing it nonetheless!   

[CoinHoarder]

@Randomaniac Thanks for that... it was a very informative post. I am starting to wrap my head around Nushares. This was also very helpful: https://docs.nubits.com/history/

So I made this proposal the last time y'all started getting friendly and I was told you have no product to sell and I should come back after 2.0 comes out when you'll have a 'real product'.  So do you have a real product now?  Wanna hear the offer?

So we get an exchange to put up an nbt/bitUSD pair.  Then, bitAssets hands Nu bitUSD evaluated at $1 each.  Nu then puts up a fixed cost ALP operation on only the nbt buy side for that pair (we can pocket the costs for bot development).  Then, we share the fixed cost between the projects, such that bitAssets pays $0.5 bitUSD for every NBT that we hand out in that liquidity operation.

The real trick is finding the price feed.  It's probably going to be something like $1.1, which is still overpriced, but at least you'll start getting liquidity on the books.  As BitUSD becomes a more stable product, y'all will have a wonderful lesson in liquidity provision as you try to figure out what spread and price feed to use for real-time live-market tracking.

This isn't a proposal to add virtual liquidity, like all the market maker proposals going around in this community.  This will generate real liquidity on a real exchange for BitUSD sell side and NBT buy side, both will benefit.

I like this idea, but I see it as being a risky proposal for whoever fronts the bitUSD for the proposal. First of all, we would need to find someone willing to front a decent amount of bitUSD with no incentive. Technically, there is a little incentive in that if he also owned BTS tokens, then the bitUSD SmartCoin would be more liquid, and thus the BTS tokens more valuable. In this scenario all stakeholders profit off of the risk one person took. This doesn't really seem fair to the person(s) (ideally it would be more than one, but in the example I use one person) fronting the bitUSD.

I like where you're going, but unless I am missing something there is a benefit for Nushares/Nubits/BitUSD/BTS shareholders and all of the risk lies upon the shoulders of the person frontign the bitUSD. bitUSD need to be shorted into existence and bought on the market, so it's not like we can print them and "freeroll" the liquidity operation. How could we tweak your business proposition to make it worth the risk for someone to front the bitUSD (specifically a benefit to the person(s) that front the bitUSD. Raising the money would not be a problem- I see a UIA or a FBA doing that easily, but it seems risky for the party fronting the bitUSD with little incentive specifically for them.

I am still of the opinion it would be better for Bitshares to make its own version of Nubits/Nushares directly on the Bitshares chain. However, it seems your proposal would be much easier to implement and will bring benefits to all communities of shareholders (Nubits/Nushares/bitUSD/Bitshares) from their pegged assets being more liquid. That would at least be a good starting point until enough consensus can be reached (if that is indeed possible...) in the community to integrate these features on chain.

EDIT: One way to provide incentive to the person(s) fronting the bitUSD is to widen the peg, so instead of $1.10 the peg would be set at $1.13, and then instead of giving $0.50 bitUSD back to the person that fronted the bitUSD, you give back $0.53. What do you think about that? I think if there was a decent incentive the bitUSD could be raised easily.. and very quickly.

[Nagalim]

Nu has the liquidity bots, the operators (with branding), the liquidity providers, the reliable grant mechanism, and the widespread market on real exchanges.  BitUSD has the >100% decentralized collateralization that Nu wants to use for T4 operations.  BitAssets needs sell liquidity, Nu needs buy liquidity.  Together we both are getting double the liquidity than we would on a pairing with btc or the like.

[kenCode]

So I made this proposal the last time y'all started getting friendly and I was told you have no product to sell and I should come back after 2.0 comes out when you'll have a 'real product'.  So do you have a real product now?  Wanna hear the offer?

So we get an exchange to put up an nbt/bitUSD pair.  Then, bitAssets hands Nu bitUSD evaluated at $1 each.  Nu then puts up a fixed cost ALP operation on only the nbt buy side for that pair (we can pocket the costs for bot development).  Then, we share the fixed cost between the projects, such that bitAssets pays $0.5 bitUSD for every NBT that we hand out in that liquidity operation.

The real trick is finding the price feed.  It's probably going to be something like $1.1, which is still overpriced, but at least you'll start getting liquidity on the books.  As BitUSD becomes a more stable product, y'all will have a wonderful lesson in liquidity provision as you try to figure out what spread and price feed to use for real-time live-market tracking.

This isn't a proposal to add virtual liquidity, like all the market maker proposals going around in this community.  This will generate real liquidity on a real exchange for BitUSD sell side and NBT buy side, both will benefit.

This sounds very interesting indeed. One of my major concerns has been the mass adoption of smartcoins so this might just be an avenue. Hmmm

[Nagalim]

So I made this proposal the last time y'all started getting friendly and I was told you have no product to sell and I should come back after 2.0 comes out when you'll have a 'real product'.  So do you have a real product now?  Wanna hear the offer?

So we get an exchange to put up an nbt/bitUSD pair.  Then, bitAssets hands Nu bitUSD evaluated at $1 each.  Nu then puts up a fixed cost ALP operation on only the nbt buy side for that pair (we can pocket the costs for bot development).  Then, we share the fixed cost between the projects, such that bitAssets pays $0.5 bitUSD for every NBT that we hand out in that liquidity operation.

The real trick is finding the price feed.  It's probably going to be something like $1.1, which is still overpriced, but at least you'll start getting liquidity on the books.  As BitUSD becomes a more stable product, y'all will have a wonderful lesson in liquidity provision as you try to figure out what spread and price feed to use for real-time live-market tracking.

This isn't a proposal to add virtual liquidity, like all the market maker proposals going around in this community.  This will generate real liquidity on a real exchange for BitUSD sell side and NBT buy side, both will benefit.

[Randomaniac]

I was also not a fan of NuBits and think it will at some time come unstuck but the volume is pretty good and I was impressed that they paid out over $400 000 in dividends to shareholders over the last year representing a 25% yield to NuShares shareholders.
[...]
Do any people who follow NuBits more know how much the market makers need to be subsidized?

So far the track record of Nu is ok for the first year. February 2015 and the months after that were bad because Nu lost a lot of money due to exchange defaults. Back then the liquidity providing was done with funds that Nu owned and handed over to custodians to provide the market with liquidity.

This model has been reworked and now Nu pays for market makers who provide liquidity with their own funds.
The average monthly revenue for market makers is approximately 7%. That seems big, but apart from the exchange default risk it needs to compensate BTC volatility (the main trading pair is still NBT/BTC, although USD/NBT and CNY/NBT are available as well).
These 7% are paid by Nu up to a maximum volume (some tens of thousands USD value each side all exchanges combined, Poloniex has the biggest volume: https://alix.coinerella.com/walls/?).
A dutch auction model kicks in if the liquidity volume is above that threshold and reduces the effective interest.

This is speaking of the so-called ALP (automated liquidity pool) where a custodian operates a server software and liquidity providers provide funds with ALP clients. They stay in full control over the funds as the ALP client puts orders via exchange API and reports them to the ALP server, which credits them each minute. The money never leaves the exchange account of the liquidity provider (unless stolen, etc.; it might just get converted of the orders get filled)

A second way to provide liquidity is via MLP (managed liquidity pool). In this version a liquidity provider uses NuBot to place orders. The funds are under direct control of the NuBot operator.

For more information on liquidity providing have a look here: http://docs.nubits.com/liquidity-pools/

There are a lot of changes on the road map.
The ALP and MLP software are currently being merged and will in the future be based on NuBot (https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubottrading/src/master/docs/SETUP.md).
The reward scheme will be changed to a fixed compensation scheme where x NBT are paid per side and liquidity providers fight over the compensation. That is expected to have some advantages over the dutch auction model as it makes providing liquidity especially attractive (in terms of interest) if the order sizes on the book are small for whatever reason.
This is expected to help the money flow between the different tiers (of Nu's tiered liquidity model), different exchanges, because it incentivizes tracking wall sizes to put orders preferred at exchanges with low order volume.
The motion regarding the tiered liquidity model: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/finalized-evolution-of-liquidity-operations/618
An interpretation of it: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/interpretation-of-the-liquidity-tiers-a-waterfall-model-triggers-metrics-and-actions/2914
The begining of the ALP: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/trust-less-liquidity-pool/1686 (back then called "trustless liquidity pool")

This might sound confusing, has a lot of links and I bet I used some words that are not really self-explanatory. Sorry for that. But the liquidity providing is a quite complex area if you are interested in the inner workings and one of Nu's important functions.
If you just want to make some money providing liquidity, it can be as easy as sending funds to the major MLP "Nulagoon" (http://nulagoon.com/lqpools.html) or downloading and configuring an ALP client.
If you have questions that are not answered here (because I think not too many from the Nu community are frequently here), feel free to ask at https://discuss.nubits.com/!

[Sentinelrv]

That's because BitShares is a platform where anyone can do whatever they want.

This seems to be the main difference. Our communities seem to have completely opposite development philosophies. It seems that NXT, Ethereum, BitShares, etc... are all trying to do too many things in an effort to be everything to everyone. The Peercoin/Nu/B&C communities have a more modular based development philosophy. I'm reminded of 2 quotes by Nu's founder Jordan Lee...

"Ethereum is based on the notion that one blockchain can rule them all, or that a cleverly built blockchain can serve a wide variety of business models simultaneously. My guess is that it will not optimally serve any business model. The Peershare philosophy is quite different. It employs separate blockchains with diverse protocols for diverse business models. Each Peershare doesn't do everything, but each one does something very well. As a group, they can serve a wide variety of business models."

"Consensus is difficult to maintain in blockchain implementations. Accidental forks happen and can be devastating in terms of double spends. Combining multiple business models into a single blockchain makes accidental forks more likely. Having a dev who supports one business model among several and is ignorant of the inner workings of the other business models is dangerous. Blockchain solutions also have scalability issues and combining multiple use cases into a single blockchain accentuates this weakness."

We see this in the form of Nu acting as a decentralized corporation for stable pegs and B&C acting as a decentralized exchange. Each Peershares implementation is a separate blockchain with a different purpose and business model. This allows the owners of each network to solely focus on the things that are important to their business without having to worry about other business models on the network that may not be important to them. NuShareholders can focus on keeping the peg and increasing adoption. BlockShareholders can focus on increasing trading and building exchange specific features. The two won't get in each others way by building both on the same blockchain and complicating matters. In the future I foresee an entire ecosystem of different Peershares implementations with various business models all working together in unison. Peercoin, Nu and B&C are only the beginning.

[Empirical1.2]

@CoinGame I'm really surprised, too. This community's tone towards NuBits has made a complete reversal in the past year.

I miss @tonyk hating on me because my first post was in a NuBits thread.

Good times.

I was also not a fan of NuBits and think it will at some time come unstuck but the volume is pretty good and I was impressed that they paid out over $400 000 in dividends to shareholders over the last year representing a 25% yield to NuShares shareholders.

$409,811 have been distributed as dividends2 over the last year, most of which was as BlockShares. Given the current NuShare market cap of $1,628,335, that is a stunning 25.17% dividend yield.

No one can say for sure whether there will be dividends in the future, but shareholders will make that decision directly. It depends on whether there are additional distributions for new Peershares like B&C Exchange, whether Nu is successful, and whether shareholders choose to use excess funds for development, share buyback or dividends. Right now they are being used for development and there is a new motion currently being voted on that would conduct share buybacks. It is unclear at the moment whether that will pass, but I suspect it will.
It is unclear whether shareholders will choose to have future excess funds used only for share buybacks or a combination of buybacks and dividends.

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/how-many-dividend-distributions-has-nushares-had-will-there-be-any-more/2739/3


Do any people who follow NuBits more know how much the market makers need to be subsidized?

[CoinHoarder]

He complained about me calling him a brown noser, and  decided to 'improve' by becoming spineless thoughtless Nu promoter...

Don't flatter yourself... I was going to write the OP regardless.

@ The Nushares posters

Yes, my opinion on Nushares has changed a lot. I THINK there are others in this community that are in the same boat but are too stubborn to admit so.

I have become so convinced that the Nushares/B&C solution to a DEX is superior to the Bitshares' solution, that I hedged my bet by investing in them both. This is coming from a long time Bitshares supporter, so I did not take the decision lightly.

A. On Bitshares you are trading derivatives, on B&C you are trading the real assets.
B. Volume and liquidity is the main reason why their design is superior. Bitshares' DEX has no liquidity because there is no adoption, and there is no adoption because there is no liquidity. This problem is simply not sovable other than to simply wait and pray that it eventually becomes more widely adopted in the future. Nushares' design solves this problem.

Marrying the solutions would be a far superior design than both solutions existing by themselves.

[Pheonike]

Bitshares has become the windows mobile of crypto. It's has the same problem, good platform but not enough users to justify a developer's time. Microsoft is a billion dollar company is resorting to developing emulators and tools to allow android/ios apps to run on it's platform. Seems like Bitshares is heading towards a similar fate.

[tonyk]

@CoinGame I'm really surprised, too. This community's tone towards NuBits has made a complete reversal in the past year.

I miss @tonyk hating on me because my first post was in a NuBits thread.

Good times.

Do not get me wrong, my opinion has not changed a bit in regards to Nu. And in all honesty I can do nothing about an idiot like the OP, starting a threads saying whatever comes to his mind.

He complained about me calling him a brown noser, and  decided to 'improve' by becoming spineless thoughtless Nu promoter...

[Chronos]

@CoinGame I'm really surprised, too. This community's tone towards NuBits has made a complete reversal in the past year.

I miss @tonyk hating on me because my first post was in a NuBits thread.

Good times.

[Akado]

This is the most flattering thread I've seen for Nu on this forum, but how does anyone expect investors to have any faith in BitShares if you guys have to pivot every nine months?

What has this project consistently done well with since launch?  That's genuinely an honest question. I would like to know. My impression is that project tries to do everything, and because of that nothing gets done well. I mean it's literally at the point where someone is suggesting to merge the deign of Nu and B&C into the project and the responses are like "great idea!".

One year ago Nu was a ponzi scheme, horrible economics, disaster waiting to happen... on and on. (I mean it could be a disaster waiting to happen... who knows.) Now I arrive at this thread.

When is BitShares going to decide to focus on doing one thing really well?  I don't have a deep understanding of the project but I like to come by here and catch up on happens. There's no real product focus. There will be no community or vision to stand on if the project doesn't have legs. Leaning on the success of Nu doesn't count.

We haven't really had to market Nu. I think we put out our first paid ads for NuBits on The Daily Decrypt just a couple weeks ago. That's it for paid marketing as far as I'm aware and it took us a year to get there. The project focuses mainly on results. I can promise you though if you guys decided to start following the implementation of Nu and B&C it will be the best free marketing we could ever ask for. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

Just wanted to leave some thoughts since this is a very strange thread to see on here. The BitShares community is much larger than Nu, and it has some really great members. It's why I like to come lurk. I think the future of BitShares would be brighter by finding a real identity. Not through the community but through the product. I'm not really sure what this project is trying to do, and I don't think i'm alone there.

That's because BitShares is a platform where anyone can do whatever they want. Except that continues vague as hell and no devs are interested in doing that.

Like you said, we need a product to sell. We need to start somewhere. The argument almost anything can be done doesn't make any sense, not for now at least. We need a product, an objective and build stuff around that. Then with time move onto other things. Like it is, is a mess.

[CoinGame]

This is the most flattering thread I've seen for Nu on this forum, but how does anyone expect investors to have any faith in BitShares if you guys have to pivot every nine months?

What has this project consistently done well with since launch?  That's genuinely an honest question. I would like to know. My impression is the project tries to do everything, and because of that nothing gets done well. I mean it's literally at the point where someone is suggesting to merge the design of Nu and B&C into the project and the responses are like "great idea!".

One year ago Nu was a ponzi scheme, horrible economics, disaster waiting to happen... on and on. (I mean it could be a disaster waiting to happen... who knows.) Now I arrive at this thread.

When is BitShares going to decide to focus on doing one thing really well?  I don't have a deep understanding of the project but I like to come by here and catch up on happenings. There's no real product focus. There will be no community or vision to stand on if the project doesn't have legs. Leaning on the success of Nu doesn't count.

We haven't really had to market Nu. I think we put out our first paid ads for NuBits on The Daily Decrypt just a couple weeks ago. That's it for paid marketing as far as I'm aware and it took us a year to get there. The project focuses mainly on results. I can promise you though if you guys decided to start following the implementation of Nu and B&C it will be the best free marketing we could ever ask for. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

Just wanted to leave some thoughts since this is a very strange thread to see on here. The BitShares community is much larger than Nu, and it has some really great members. It's why I like to come lurk. I think the future of BitShares would be brighter by finding a real identity. Not through the community but through the product. I'm not really sure what this project is trying to do, and I don't think i'm alone there.

[kenCode]

and to quote Ricky Bobby.... if you're not first you're last. 

i love that movie, thanx for the smile @CoinHoarder

[CoinHoarder]

IMHO, we had to complete exchange features first, such as BSIP 4 and market making bots, then dive into stealth transfer feature.

I am being kind of hypocritical here, but after reading BM's blog response today I kind of agree with him that Bitshares should pivot and his time is best spent focusing on Stealth transfers and MASs. He brought up something I hadn't considered (#2 of the following).

1. DEX is a hotly contested sub-industry in the cryptosphere (competition from B&C, Nushares, and Nxt)
2. Even if the DEX realistically adopted, it still would not be very profitable or bring in a ton of new users (BM explained this well in his blog post today).

I think all projects should be worked on in parallel and one feature is not neccesarily more important than the other. We as a community need to get organized, prioritize, find developers, and get these projects developed in parallel to each other.

MAS is good and has great potential. But we need to have profitable product first to sustain development.
IMO, DEX is almost or already complete. But it cannot be profitable without percentage based fee. So I would argue for completion of BSIP 4.
Then let third party developers to develop advanced exchange features.

I can agree with you on the fees and third party development of advanced DEX features.

Realistically, I am doubtful that the exchange will be very profitable anytime in the near future. I think BM worded this better than I could in his blog. It is hard to spur adoption without volume/liquidity, and it is hard to spur volume/liquidity without adoption. To solve the problem anytime in the near future, it requires us changing our approach. This is why I am suggesting we marry the Nushares/B&C Exchange and SmartCoin/DEX ideas into one well oiled unstoppable DEX machine. This, along with BM branching off into other less competitive features/industries will help bootstrap the exchange.

[clayop]

IMHO, we had to complete exchange features first, such as BSIP 4 and market making bots, then dive into stealth transfer feature.

I am being kind of hypocritical here, but after reading BM's blog response today I kind of agree with him that Bitshares should pivot and his time is best spent focusing on Stealth transfers and MASs. He brought up something I hadn't considered (#2 of the following).

1. DEX is a hotly contested sub-industry in the cryptosphere (competition from B&C, Nushares, and Nxt)
2. Even if the DEX realistically adopted, it still would not be very profitable or bring in a ton of new users (BM explained this well in his blog post today).

I think all projects should be worked on in parallel and one feature is not neccesarily more important than the other. We as a community need to get organized, prioritize, find developers, and get these projects developed in parallel to each other.

MAS is good and has great potential. But we need to have profitable product first to sustain development.
IMO, DEX is almost or already complete. But it cannot be profitable without percentage based fee. So I would argue for completion of BSIP 4.
Then let third party developers to develop advanced exchange features.

[CoinHoarder]

I suggest we start with shamelessly admitting that Nushares/Nubits/B&C Exchange have a quality (albeit different) solution to the same problem, and that merging those solutions into Bitshares so they can exist in harmony with SmartCoins is advantageous for both shareholders and "customers". From there, let Bitshares' users/customers decide which implementations they prefer. I think we would still have an advantage if we can get both solutions (SmartCoins and Nushares' and B&Cs' implementations) working harmoniously. An advantage in exposure, market cap, and utility due to all our other features. Let's make sure we secure the decentralized exchange market before branching off too much.

Sounds all good to me! As you said, screw the shareholders.. just do it.

So you seem to have an interest in this and have a vision for it. So what practical steps do you propose to take next?

Is this something outside the realm of something you can execute yourself?

If so, do you need someone to work with you to plan and execute?

Please keep going.. this was a great post.. it just needs to keep on moving towards it's logical conclusion.

I think we should get organized as a community of stakeholders, prioritize what needs to be worked on, and find developers willing to work for Bitshares. Let BM do his thing with Stealth transfers and MASs... the community can take care of everything else.

I have been getting back into programming lately, but have not coded any C++ in a very long time. I have been learning Javascript sicne I'm interested in building web applications, so I may be able to help with some GUI work but I stay very busy with a 40 hour job plus 6 college hours. I would see myself more of an organizer at this point though, and would probably leave the developing to those that are more knowledgeable and have more time to do so.

@all the others: please stop blaming CNX for trying to be a competitive and profitable company. If they don't make their money they will disappear and the consequence of that will be that Dan has to work for Google or someone even worse!!

Yes, we need not be worried about dilution or giving up equity (FBAs) at this point in the game. This is a race, and to quote Ricky Bobby.... if you're not first you're last. 

[yvv]

@all the others: please stop blaming CNX for trying to be a competitive and profitable company. If they don't make their money they will disappear and the consequence of that will be that Dan has to work for Google or someone even worse!!

Why is it bad to work for Google? My friends work, and they are happy.

[CoinHoarder]

IMHO, we had to complete exchange features first, such as BSIP 4 and market making bots, then dive into stealth transfer feature.

I am being kind of hypocritical here, but after reading BM's blog response today I kind of agree with him that Bitshares should pivot and his time is best spent focusing on Stealth transfers and MASs. He brought up something I hadn't considered (#2 of the following).

1. DEX is a hotly contested sub-industry in the cryptosphere (competition from B&C, Nushares, and Nxt)
2. Even if the DEX realistically adopted, it still would not be very profitable or bring in a ton of new users (BM explained this well in his blog post today).

I think all projects should be worked on in parallel and one feature is not neccesarily more important than the other. We as a community need to get organized, prioritize, find developers, and get these projects developed in parallel to each other.

[CoinHoarder]

@CoinHoarder

"B&C will allow the exchange of real assets"

How does it allow the exchange of real assets?

" ... handling of funds will be coordinated via blockchain messages between multisig signers whose reputations are adjusted every minute by shareholder voting ... "

BCT Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.0
Whitepaper: https://nubits.com/sites/default/files/assets/Blocks%20%26%20Chains%20Decentralized%20Exchange.pdf
Website: https://bcexchange.org/

[btswildpig]

@all the others: please stop blaming CNX for trying to be a competitive and profitable company. If they don't make their money they will disappear and the consequence of that will be that Dan has to work for Google or someone even worse!!

I think everyone in that team can work for google except BM . I don't think Google can tolerate him , or he can not tolerate google .

[fuzzy]

it never ceases to stun me how many shareholders just say "screw it, let someone else pay for it" then wonder why bitshares only has a small handful of devs when it coukd become a Mecca for them. 

[JonnyB]

@CoinHoarder

"B&C will allow the exchange of real assets"

How does it allow the exchange of real assets?

[xeroc]

@all the others: please stop blaming CNX for trying to be a competitive and profitable company. If they don't make their money they will disappear and the consequence of that will be that Dan has to work for Google or someone even worse!!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I suggest we start with shamelessly admitting that Nushares/Nubits/B&C Exchange have a quality (albeit different) solution to the same problem, and that merging those solutions into Bitshares so they can exist in harmony with SmartCoins is advantageous for both shareholders and "customers". From there, let Bitshares' users/customers decide which implementations they prefer. I think we would still have an advantage if we can get both solutions (SmartCoins and Nushares' and B&Cs' implementations) working harmoniously. An advantage in exposure, market cap, and utility due to all our other features. Let's make sure we secure the decentralized exchange market before branching off too much.

Sounds all good to me! As you said, screw the shareholders.. just do it.

So you seem to have an interest in this and have a vision for it. So what practical steps do you propose to take next?

Is this something outside the realm of something you can execute yourself?

If so, do you need someone to work with you to plan and execute?

Please keep going.. this was a great post.. it just needs to keep on moving towards it's logical conclusion.

[Xypher]

Really well written points by someone that does give a fuck about long term viability and profit.
Can't possibly agree more with you. Here's what I'd mentioned a few days back personally

I'm the only one that think this is bad idea?

Nope. I feel outnumbered here too.

What are the difference between future fees or vested dilution? Help me?

1 - Future fees are not known, probably a lot more.

2 - Future fees causes political issues, for instance, the community could decide that the stealth should be the default transfer method and charge more for non stealth transactions, the people or group of people holding stealth BTA would say NO!.

3 - Future fees complicate things, create systemic risks with some people or group owning some network features.

I really think we should be united as BTS as all interests of all participants. And always clear of any form of future debt beside vesting. And knowing all workers cost on advance.

Very elegantly said. I don't see the point of even having a blockchain if we're just going to sell out every incoming feature to those willing to put cash on the table. That's how the centralized financial system currently works and I'm here because I favor a paradigm change.

To someone of communist mindset this FBA is offensive.

I'm not a communist and I find the FBA proposition offensive.

We've seen how capitalism works with regulations, checks and balances, and we're seeing how it works when you let investors and businesses control everything. I favor the former, but believe this is a step towards the later.

inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!"  It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.

Really important point here.
Going to speak on a personal basis - and am sorry if the following post offends anyone. I don't intend to piss people off, just want to share my honest opinion.


1. We have the groundwork for an amazing crypto here. A vibrant community, decentralized decision making via committees (although voting is not clear to me) and most importantly, insanely quick transactions that can scale to the needs of a global user base.

2. We do have something that's almost close to a decentralized form of governance with the committee system in place, but there's literally no documentation whatsoever nor a means for a person that's not a dev to really partake in it. In addition, its not sensitive to the needs of a global user base. For instance, there's no way we can have a committee with representations from key markets like China or a major demographic like gamers.

3. The FBA system is incredible - from the pov of someone that's about to raise funds. Yes, I can "theoretically" pledge my "theoretical" tx fees from the future to users here and "theoretically" raise funds. I use theoretically, because hey.. we haven't had a successful fund raise yet. In terms of legality, i don't know how different this is from a UIA, where I can simply say "I'll pledge my ref to the backers of the project" , or we can go the route of traditional VC's and say, I pledge x percent to the backers . Again, the legality of this is largely in murky waters because its not clear yet. From the eyes of an average consumer, this is a very innovative way to raise funds, but from what I know of banking..organizations repeatedly find ways to raise funds via multiple complicated systems when there's no actual economic growth going on. Remember subprime mortgage and the tech stock crash of 2000's? This is what it truly reminds me of.

4. Worker proposals are cool. Agreed. But beyond CNX and a few others that have been involved with the community for years we have neither attracted talent nor had individuals putting forward proposals. From my experience, I find worker proposals a zero sum game because it takes time to raise funds that way and in most cases given the declining markets of BTS (currently) - associated risks are way too high when we take exchange rates into consideration.

5. It is sad that CNX would focus on what an individual would offer them to build instead of having the collective requirements of us as a community needs. I am by no means blaming CNX here, but pointing the fact that our ecosystem may not be as vibrant as it should be. We have collectively failed to attract talent, infuse capital and build an ecosystem where we don't have to depend solely on CNX to build the things we need.  The reason for this being
(i) complexity of understanding the system
(ii) lack of documentation
(iii) on-going politics and underlying personal motivations and agendas

6. If we are to see a change in the way things are, we'll need
(i) - effective forms of governance and decision making.
CNX has laid the groundwork with the committee system but I am yet to see how its effective

(ii) Effective means of fund raising and backing projects
-How come only a handful of projects have fund raised with UIA's ? Nxt's ecosystem is a very good example of this.
SecureAE is an extremely efficient system in handling such user cases (although I've experienced bugs)

(iii) Open towards International Communities
Solely releasing PR in 15 languages won't do the job. We'll need to understand user cases and local markets efficiently to penetrate markets. Resource persons from each demographic need to be bought on board, paid if need be - and learned from to create better products.

(iv) Empower entrepreneurs
As an entrepreneur, I can attest the fact that yes, this ecosystem is very confusing. We need to put individuals that are reliable, trustworthy and capable to help onboard businesses and nurture businesses within the ecosystem. Why don't we have a community backed accelerator of sorts. Pooled funds to invest into x number of startups for y amount of equity. Performance tracked every quarter. This will be largely capitalistic in nature, but its something we should look into. I am happy to dedicate time into something of this nature if we are up for it.

FBA isn't about capitalism vs socialism. Its about our combined failure to create redundant systems that are non reliant solely on CNX to define the future of what a decentralized currency that works almost at the speeds of NASDAQ can be.

My .32 bts, because as mentioned earlier... I can't send you guys 2 and 30 bts would now go to the network.
-Xypher

[clayop]

 

IMHO, we had to complete exchange features first, such as BSIP 4 and market making bots, then dive into stealth transfer feature.

[CoinHoarder]

Everyone has been so negative around here lately, so it sucks I need to write this post but I would like to give my candid opinion on a few matters. I was recently called a "brown noser"... that is hilarious because that is and never has been the case as yet again evidenced by this post. I just prefer we all talk to each other decently while still allowing people to freely dissent. I do not like the direction the project is heading. I have been investing because I still believe in the underlying technology and Bytemaster, but there are apparent risks ahead of us and I feel less certain about the future of Bitshares than ever before.

Bitshares needs to start thinking about its customers every now and then rather than making all decisions purely based on its shareholders (more than half of which seemed OK with the stealth proposal as it is regardless.) That is a sure fire way to put a company out of business. Being that it is so early in the game, Bitshares needs to cater more to the consumer/customer rather than just to shareholders. IMO- the price has been falling forever, at this point screw the shareholders. The only chance of righting the ship is to cater to customers/consumers and grow the Bitshares brand before we are crushed by the competition.

Nushares/B&C Exchange is behind us as far as volume and market cap, but I think they are really gaining steam. They are positioning themselves to completely take over the original target market of Bitshares (a decentralized exchange.) B&C will allow the exchange of real assets (not derivatives), and Nubits is way more liquid than BitAssets. We technically have the better solution, but because of that better solution we have no liquidity, and because there's no liquidity no one uses it, and without anyone using bitassets Bitshares tokens will eventually end up useless.

Maybe Bytemaster already realizes this and is trying to pivot the direction of Bitshares (regarding stealth transactions and mutual aid societies). To pivot is certainly one option. A second option would be to simply copy Nushare's implementation and let Bitshares' customers choose in between the technologies by using the free market and letting it work itself out over time (IMO the second option should have been taken a year ago, but of course hindsight is 20/20.) Many cryptocurrencies borrow ideas from other cryptocurrencies, there is nothing to be ashamed about that... that is how opensourced ecosystems operate.

Dilute my shares as much as you want AND create as many FBAs as you need. Bitshares needs to stay ahead in this race or else it will quickly be left behind. Shareholders, be prepared to dilute like crazy and give up future profit sources in the short term in order to have a chance to not be crushed by the competition. Otherwise, we can all just wait to be crushed by the competition. Owning 1% of a billion dollar company is better than 99% of a million dollar company, and 1 million users spending 1 BTS on fees per transaction spend more on fees 1 thousand users spending 999 BTS on fees per transaction.

Short term greed (in the case of shareholders continually raising fees) and pride (in the case of dismissing Nushares' and B&C Exchanges' implementations) will kill this company like it has many companies before it. Stealth transfers and Mutual Aid Societies (although they will help) will not save this project. Both of those projects certainly need to be completed, but still more work needs to be done and I don't think many shareholders realize that.

I suggest we start with shamelessly admitting that Nushares/Nubits/B&C Exchange have a quality (albeit different) solution to the same problem, and that merging those solutions into Bitshares so they can exist in harmony with SmartCoins is advantageous for both shareholders and "customers". From there, let Bitshares' users/customers decide which implementations they prefer. I think we would still have an advantage if we can get both solutions (SmartCoins and Nushares' and B&Cs' implementations) working harmoniously. An advantage in exposure, market cap, and utility due to all our other features. Let's make sure we secure the decentralized exchange market before branching off too much.