[POLL] Possible committee actions to help with liquidity

[JonnyB]

The bitassets created would get sold on the market at say feed price +7% and then the bts from that sale returned to the reserve pool or fee pool.

A committee run account would have create these new bitassets and once created and sold that account would have 300% collateral positions for the 100% bitassets it created.

On telegram with @mindplux @iHashFury  we discussed the idea of a committee controlled account which could create  $50,000 bitUSD and then destroying the private key for that committee controlled account.

This would create a good base supply of bitusd to jumpstart the dex and get it moving.  If a worker proposal wasn't continuous and  ended it would still be providing liquidty because there would be more bitassets sloshing around in the system in general.

However! those 300% ($150000) worth of BTS would be lost forever. so the equivalent of a burn really. 

You could offset this loss/burn by adding a recurring payment from the committe controlled account that gets deleted so that any bts from forced settlements in the committee account would be returned to the reserve pool.

I think this idea could make sense as a one hit or injection of liquidity to the dex.

So the worker would dilute BTS, however the bts created from that dilution would be locked away forever, meaning there would be no true excess of BTS supply right?

But couldn't that restrict our future reserve pool, form which we can get funding for other features? Since our pool is limited and we would permanently remove 150k from our future budget to fund other features?

Yes it would be locked away forever. so not a real dilution.


yes it would be gone unless a recurring payment was set up to return any(settled by others) bts back to the reserve pool.

[Akado]

The bitassets created would get sold on the market at say feed price +7% and then the bts from that sale returned to the reserve pool or fee pool.

A committee run account would have create these new bitassets and once created and sold that account would have 300% collateral positions for the 100% bitassets it created.

On telegram with @mindplux @iHashFury  we discussed the idea of a committee controlled account which could create  $50,000 bitUSD and then destroying the private key for that committee controlled account.

This would create a good base supply of bitusd to jumpstart the dex and get it moving.  If a worker proposal wasn't continuous and  ended it would still be providing liquidty because there would be more bitassets sloshing around in the system in general.

However! those 300% ($150000) worth of BTS would be lost forever. so the equivalent of a burn really. 

You could offset this loss/burn by adding a recurring payment from the committe controlled account that gets deleted so that any bts from forced settlements in the committee account would be returned to the reserve pool.

I think this idea could make sense as a one hit or injection of liquidity to the dex.

So the worker would dilute BTS, however the bts created from that dilution would be locked away forever, meaning there would be no true excess of BTS supply right?

But couldn't that restrict our future reserve pool, form which we can get funding for other features? Since our pool is limited and we would permanently remove 150k from our future budget to fund other features?

[JonnyB]

The bitassets created would get sold on the market at say feed price +7% and then the bts from that sale returned to the reserve pool or fee pool.

A committee run account would have create these new bitassets and once created and sold that account would have 300% collateral positions for the 100% bitassets it created.

On telegram with @mindplux @iHashFury  we discussed the idea of a committee controlled account which could create  $50,000 bitUSD and then destroying the private key for that committee controlled account.

This would create a good base supply of bitusd to jumpstart the dex and get it moving.  If a worker proposal wasn't continuous and  ended it would still be providing liquidty because there would be more bitassets sloshing around in the system in general.

However! those 300% ($150000) worth of BTS would be lost forever. so the equivalent of a burn really. 

You could offset this loss/burn by adding a recurring payment from the committe controlled account that gets deleted so that any bts from forced settlements in the committee account would be returned to the reserve pool.

I think this idea could make sense as a one hit or injection of liquidity to the dex.

[Akado]

I'm a fan of providing an incentive to market makers.  I would prefer that incentive cone from a worker proposal.

Selling these bitassets is really just getting back to par as par.

I am too. I like some of the market maker ideas here. That could take a little more time, however it could be a more long term solution. I like the idea of a shared pool that was suggested that the committee funds could just participate in.

Sadly this is not an option in the poll that was started so I can't really cast my preference other than 'other'.

One thing though.. how would it be decided which markets get funded?

My preference is that as a committee we would simply sell the assets back into the market and use those funds to fund the fee pool.

If we went further than that the smart thing to do would be to start with our largest bitasset that also tends towards being overpriced.  Specifically bitusd.  The fair thing to do, would be to spend the proceeds of each assets fee pool on extra liquidity for that asset.

Option 1 was my preference next to some kind of MM pool that has been talked about.

I would hope by bringing some liquidity to the markets we do bring pricing into tighter margins but with what we have thus far and what we should keep in reserve for fees I don't imagine it would make much of a dent atm. That's why I think a longer term solution I think would be an MM pool with committee involvement.

Have you discussed that with committee members? I would like to see that. I think it's better to take initiative on that and find our own solutions instead of waiting for CNX to develop MAKER as that might take a while, plus, by then, we might already have a little more volume

[Ben Mason]

My preference is that as a committee we would simply sell the assets back into the market and use those funds to fund the fee pool.

If we went further than that the smart thing to do would be to start with our largest bitasset that also tends towards being overpriced.  Specifically bitusd.  The fair thing to do, would be to spend the proceeds of each assets fee pool on extra liquidity for that asset.

I also think that this is very reasonable thing to do at this moment.

I like this idea too

[Samupaha]

My preference is that as a committee we would simply sell the assets back into the market and use those funds to fund the fee pool.

If we went further than that the smart thing to do would be to start with our largest bitasset that also tends towards being overpriced.  Specifically bitusd.  The fair thing to do, would be to spend the proceeds of each assets fee pool on extra liquidity for that asset.

I also think that this is very reasonable thing to do at this moment.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I'm a fan of providing an incentive to market makers.  I would prefer that incentive cone from a worker proposal.

Selling these bitassets is really just getting back to par as par.

I am too. I like some of the market maker ideas here. That could take a little more time, however it could be a more long term solution. I like the idea of a shared pool that was suggested that the committee funds could just participate in.

Sadly this is not an option in the poll that was started so I can't really cast my preference other than 'other'.

One thing though.. how would it be decided which markets get funded?

My preference is that as a committee we would simply sell the assets back into the market and use those funds to fund the fee pool.

If we went further than that the smart thing to do would be to start with our largest bitasset that also tends towards being overpriced.  Specifically bitusd.  The fair thing to do, would be to spend the proceeds of each assets fee pool on extra liquidity for that asset.

Option 1 was my preference next to some kind of MM pool that has been talked about.

I would hope by bringing some liquidity to the markets we do bring pricing into tighter margins but with what we have thus far and what we should keep in reserve for fees I don't imagine it would make much of a dent atm. That's why I think a longer term solution I think would be an MM pool with committee involvement.

[puppies]

I'm a fan of providing an incentive to market makers.  I would prefer that incentive cone from a worker proposal.

Selling these bitassets is really just getting back to par as par.

I am too. I like some of the market maker ideas here. That could take a little more time, however it could be a more long term solution. I like the idea of a shared pool that was suggested that the committee funds could just participate in.

Sadly this is not an option in the poll that was started so I can't really cast my preference other than 'other'.

One thing though.. how would it be decided which markets get funded?

My preference is that as a committee we would simply sell the assets back into the market and use those funds to fund the fee pool.

If we went further than that the smart thing to do would be to start with our largest bitasset that also tends towards being overpriced.  Specifically bitusd.  The fair thing to do, would be to spend the proceeds of each assets fee pool on extra liquidity for that asset.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

I'm a fan of providing an incentive to market makers.  I would prefer that incentive cone from a worker proposal.

Selling these bitassets is really just getting back to par as par.

I am too. I like some of the market maker ideas here. That could take a little more time, however it could be a more long term solution. I like the idea of a shared pool that was suggested that the committee funds could just participate in.

Sadly this is not an option in the poll that was started so I can't really cast my preference other than 'other'.

One thing though.. how would it be decided which markets get funded?

[JonnyB]

You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea. 

The committee is currently long 6910 USD, 7860 CNY, and .473BTC these positions are not guaranteed profitable positions to hold either.

We need to create bitassets and sell them into the market for liquidity not worry about the profits from it.

If those 6k would be divided between 3-6 different members doing some market making on the DEX it could help get some traction.

I say not sell them but have that spread on people who can do market making and of course, we can trust. Multi sig account shared with committee members or other trustworthy people with more weight over the account.

Thats too complex. Just put the lot up for sale at feed +7% and release them back in to market place.
This adds instant market depth on the sell side where it is most lacking.
Then return the bts from the sale back to the reserve pool.

That seems only a momentarily solution. 6k isn't that much. What happens once they're gone? Having market makers use that can keep liquidity for longer until people start slowly adhering to the peg. Just throwing those in the wild with no plan doesn't make sense.

It's nice if you want to pick up cheap assets and 7% above the feed and sell them again at 20 or 30% above and make some profit  it's bad for BitShares not having a longer term plan

Selling at feed +7% +10% +20% or whatever is market making.
If you spread it across 6 trusted people with multi sig it will still get sold just as quick.
The trouble is there isn't enough bitassets sloshing around at the moment which is why i think maybe it makes sense to create more bit assets using reserve pool bts.
This would stop a manipulator from buying up all of the available bitasset and refusing to sell to those trying to cover unless they pay a 30% premium over feed.

[puppies]

I'm a fan of providing an incentive to market makers.  I would prefer that incentive cone from a worker proposal.

Selling these bitassets is really just getting back to par as par.

[Akado]

You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea. 

The committee is currently long 6910 USD, 7860 CNY, and .473BTC these positions are not guaranteed profitable positions to hold either.

We need to create bitassets and sell them into the market for liquidity not worry about the profits from it.

If those 6k would be divided between 3-6 different members doing some market making on the DEX it could help get some traction.

I say not sell them but have that spread on people who can do market making and of course, we can trust. Multi sig account shared with committee members or other trustworthy people with more weight over the account.

Thats too complex. Just put the lot up for sale at feed +7% and release them back in to market place.
This adds instant market depth on the sell side where it is most lacking.
Then return the bts from the sale back to the reserve pool.

That seems only a momentarily solution. 6k isn't that much. What happens once they're gone? Having market makers use that can keep liquidity for longer until people start slowly adhering to the peg. Just throwing those in the wild with no plan doesn't make sense.

It's nice if you want to pick up cheap assets and 7% above the feed and sell them again at 20 or 30% above and make some profit  it's bad for BitShares not having a longer term plan

[JonnyB]

You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea. 

The committee is currently long 6910 USD, 7860 CNY, and .473BTC these positions are not guaranteed profitable positions to hold either.

We need to create bitassets and sell them into the market for liquidity not worry about the profits from it.

If those 6k would be divided between 3-6 different members doing some market making on the DEX it could help get some traction.

I say not sell them but have that spread on people who can do market making and of course, we can trust. Multi sig account shared with committee members or other trustworthy people with more weight over the account.

Thats too complex. Just put the lot up for sale at feed +7% and release them back in to market place.
This adds instant market depth on the sell side where it is most lacking.
Then return the bts from the sale back to the reserve pool.

[Akado]

You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea. 

The committee is currently long 6910 USD, 7860 CNY, and .473BTC these positions are not guaranteed profitable positions to hold either.

We need to create bitassets and sell them into the market for liquidity not worry about the profits from it.

If those 6k would be divided between 3-6 different members doing some market making on the DEX it could help get some traction.

I say not sell them but have that spread on people who can do market making and of course, we can trust. Multi sig account shared with committee members or other trustworthy people with more weight over the account.

[JonnyB]

You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea. 

The committee is currently long 6910 USD, 7860 CNY, and .473BTC these positions are not guaranteed profitable positions to hold either.

We need to create bitassets and sell them into the market for liquidity not worry about the profits from it.