Author Topic: Radical ideas for liquidity  (Read 24272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Regarding BitAssets, I don't think we need to abandon any, but perhaps the only BitAssets that should trade against BTS, at least for now, are BTC, CNY and USD

BTC is highly volatile.
CNY is not exactly stable right now.
USD is backed by a government ~$20 trillion in debt and a Federal Reserve not shy to keep on printing.

SGD, CHF, GOLD and SILVER maybe? I don't think we should do away with EUR/USD/BTC/CNY, to clarify. These (EUR/etc) are good for other things.. guess I'm looking at this more like a saver.

Totally with you on the unifying the BTC tokens though. And I see the same thing coming with OPEN.EUR etc. Soon enough there'll be dozens of markets for the same thing, all of them centralized solutions.. precisely the problem smartcoins proposed to solve.


edit: to clarify, I think serving as a stable store of value is one of the things missing from the crypto-space right now - and as you can likely tell from the text above, I don't think EUR/USD/CNY is the currency to do so.

There's hundreds of options already for speculating, but little to none to act as (stable/predictable) stores of value in the cryptospace (with one or two exceptions, but by and large the market is up for grabs). I think this might be an interesting market to capture.. all other crypto-traders coming in and out of the BTS ecosystem to store their profits while waiting for the right move to get back in the game, that kind of thing.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 06:51:13 pm by karnal »

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
I've been saying from the start that we have too many versions of BTC, which is killing liquidity and adding to another problem i.e. a dizzying array of trading pairs.  So unifying the BTC tokens will solve more than one problem.  More on that below.

Regarding BitAssets, I don't think we need to abandon any, but perhaps the only BitAssets that should trade against BTS, at least for now, are BTC, CNY and USD.  Further, aside from unifying the BTC tokens, we should focus on supporting the creation of (and providing liquidity for) only one BItAsset, USD.  In addition to that, all other BitAssets aside from CNY (e.g. BitEUR, BitGold, BitSilver, BitOIL, etc.) should trade against USD only.  I'm 99% sure @bytemaster made a suggestion similar to this during a mumble session, so maybe he can talk about what it would take to make this happen. 

Back to unifying BTC.  This is critical.  But our hands have been tied because gateways all want their own tokens so they can capture the trading fees.  On one hand, I can't really blame them.   On the other hand, it defeats one of the purposes of the DEX -- pooled liquidity.  And since we desperately need liquidity, we MUST unify the BTC tokens into one main BTC asset that everything else trades against (aside from the BitAssets that trade only against BitUSD, as mentioned above). 

So how can we satisfy these seemingly conflicting interests?  I have an idea.  What if the fees generated by trades against the unified BTC asset were split among the gateways based on the % of BTC each is responsible for getting onto the DEX?   So let's say 10% of the BTC is on the DEX due to gateway services provided by metaexchange, 10% due to blocktrades, 20% due to OL, and the remaining 60% was purchased directly on the DEX.  So any trade against BTC would then be split based on those percentages.  I'm not sure how this would be implemented, but I'm sure it's possible and we need to do something!

By the way, keep in mind that the measures I'm proposing above must be done in conjunction with some of the other liquidity-building measures, as proposed by @JonnyBitcoin and others.  Thoughts?

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.

Spoke too soon  :o

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
The dex is not a decentralized exchange without a functioning smartcoin. Trading UIAs is nice but can be done faster and cheaper on poloniex.
We are 4 months in to bts 2.0 and none of the smartcoins are liquid. Something big needs to change.

Before even reading the rest of the thread... this x 1 million.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I agree with applying an easy to implement radical solution to get a single BitAsset tightly pegged and cost effective to enter/exit.

I think there are varying ideas on how best to achieve it but I believe we should be trying the most simple to implement + cost effective measure that is likely to work on a single BitAsset & then gauge the results.

It shouldn't take to long to gauge it's efficacy and try something else if it's not.

We should also work on a more long term sustainable solution to the problem.
How about we run a contest similar to the one on the testnet payed by a worker proposal. Something along the lines:

- 2 weeks preparations time
- fund your account with your own money
- trade for 4 weeks
- everyone can proof your profits on the chain
- the winner gets $1k paid by either the committee or a worker proposal

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
snip

Your posts confuse me. I am never certain if you are being sincere or sarcastic. Were you in favor of my proposal or not... I am confused.

I say we kick Nubits/Nushares in the teeth. If we implement a proposal similar to what I have proposed, then we will have a superior product in multiple ways. As it currently stands I cannot say that. They have done a much better job at liquidity which is pretty much the only thing people seem to care about (judging by Nubit/Tether/etc volume). I at first dismissed Nushares/Nubits, but have come to respect their implementation. Say what you will about it, but it works and it works well. I am now an investor in B&C and Nushares, simply because Bitshares has blown its lead, Nubits is highly liquid and popular (a lot more so than bitUSD), and I wanted to hedge my bet. I could see either implementation winning out, but I would prefer Bitshares win the war since it was my first love (as far as DEXs go).  8)

My proposal would give us a leg up on them because the liquidity would be provided autonomously... their liquidity system is very convoluted and requires the cooperation of a lot of people. We also have more than just a few FIAT derivatives, and can function as a well diversified exchange with GOLD, NASDAQ, etc... I personally want to use our exchange for many different assets but am not willing to pay the huge premium for things like gold, silver, etc.. I really want to purchase other commodities such as oil, stocks, and stock indexes but I can't.

As I mentioned in the first post.. it can be a temporary solution to liquidity and we can take the training wheels off if the exchange gains natural liquidity. It is a means to an end. It is intended to jump start activity on the exchange.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 06:58:18 am by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
A worker proposal funding committee-trade, which then sets a sell wall and a buy wall held by a bot would be perfect.  We don't need to worry about our bot making money.  It would be a service provided by the blockchain, and the only dilution would be funds that the account lost due to taking bad trades.

I would like to see sell walls at 2% above feed, and buywalls at 99% of feed.  If we could guarantee the ability to purchase USD, CNY, and BTC at 2% above feed then our gateways could use real bitassets rather than UIA's.  They would just need to charge a 2% transfer fee.  The closer we can get to the peg, the lower they could get their fees. 

I think BTC or USD would be the best market to start with.

Best of all this requires no real development.  I could write the bot myself, and would do so free of charge.  We could solve our problems ourselves without having to wait for the devs.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads


Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Committee should start by using the fees from the pool they collected. That would be a start. With these pumps and our volume reaching $50k that could help us go even higher. It's a chance we might not get!

But atm everyone will be busy discussing fees and once again, ignoring this.

Committee, could you please discuss how to use the fee pool? With this amount of volume this is a good chance!
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I agree with applying an easy to implement radical solution to get a single BitAsset tightly pegged and cost effective to enter/exit.

I think there are varying ideas on how best to achieve it but I believe we should be trying the most simple to implement + cost effective measure that is likely to work on a single BitAsset & then gauge the results.

It shouldn't take to long to gauge it's efficacy and try something else if it's not.

We should also work on a more long term sustainable solution to the problem.





If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline wallace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
The dex is not a decentralized exchange without a functioning smartcoin. Trading UIAs is nice but can be done faster and cheaper on poloniex.
We are 4 months in to bts 2.0 and none of the smartcoins are liquid. Something big needs to change.
People keep saying we just need a bridge to smartcoins but nobody will provide that bridge without liquidity
Here are some radical ideas of how to increase liquidity.

- The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%
- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.
- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.
- Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity
- Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX
- Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.
- Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.

Loads of people are going to moan about these ideas but we need to prove a smartcoin works.
The trading volume of USD:BTC over the last 24hrs is actually zero as it is on most days.

 +5% +5%

after too many changes, have forgotten our original core product.
give me money, I will do...

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
@JonnyBitcoin
A. Dilution will lower the value of BTS - The dilution for this feature would not lower the value of the BTS token, as it does not effect the demand. The supply on "paper" increases, but that supply never makes its way into the market. So, no downward pressure is ever applied onto the market from the BTS printed.

It doesn't need to. What matters is people's perception of what's happening. The simple idea of diluting will put many people off because they will immediately associate it with the merger and consequent price drop.

You could dilute, if people aren't aware of it your plan could work.
On the other hand even if you don't dilute, if people somehow think you're doing it, it will be a "merger" all over again.

People's perception matters a lot imo.

I honestly didn't expect you knuckleheads to take my solution seriously. This community is such a joke. You guys argue about trivial things as if they will have some great effect, and ignore the real solutions to problems. My solution solves the problem at hand... better than any other solution that anyone has brought up. You guys will end up wasting more money diluting (real, negative dilution... not the kind I've proposed here) shareholders to put band aids on the problem without ever fixing it. More band aids will be needed to replace the band aids that were ineffective, and so on and so forth.

I don't have time right now to explain fully, but most of Jonny's solutions are unacceptable because they either limit the functionality of Smartcoins/Bitshares, require unreasonable cooperation in between 3rd parties, are unreasonable due to legalities/logistics, or put a band aid on the issue without solving it.

Well, you suggested, we discussed it. What's the problem with that?

What you have to consider is not just how to solve one problem, but if the solution to that problem creates other new problems.

It's not that I don't like your idea, I've thought about that too. It sounds good. Thing is I'm divided because I know how most people react to "dilution". If it had no repercussions I would agree with it at 100% but for now I'm divided. I have also thought about using dilution to create assets and bring liquidity in, it makes sense, but I just don't know if it's worth the trouble, because, it's not up to you or me to decide. Most people hate the concept of dilution and even if this would bring in liquidity which I think it has good chances to, it could have other consequences. That's what we need to consider.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 03:52:35 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
@JonnyBitcoin
A. Dilution will lower the value of BTS - The dilution for this feature would not lower the value of the BTS token, as it does not effect the demand. The supply on "paper" increases, but that supply never makes its way into the market. So, no downward pressure is ever applied onto the market from the BTS printed.

It doesn't need to. What matters is people's perception of what's happening. The simple idea of diluting will put many people off because they will immediately associate it with the merger and consequent price drop.

You could dilute, if people aren't aware of it your plan could work.
On the other hand even if you don't dilute, if people somehow think you're doing it, it will be a "merger" all over again.

People's perception matters a lot imo.

I honestly didn't expect you knuckleheads to take my solution seriously. This community is such a joke. You guys argue about trivial things as if they will have some great effect, and ignore the real solutions to problems. My solution solves the problem at hand... better than any other solution that anyone has brought up. You guys will end up wasting more money diluting (real, negative dilution... not the kind I've proposed here) shareholders to put band aids on the problem without ever fixing it. More band aids will be needed to replace the band aids that were ineffective, and so on and so forth.

I don't have time right now to explain fully, but most of Jonny's solutions are unacceptable because they either limit the functionality of Smartcoins/Bitshares, require unreasonable cooperation in between 3rd parties, are unreasonable due to legalities/logistics, or put a band aid on the issue without solving it.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
@JonnyBitcoin
A. Dilution will lower the value of BTS - The dilution for this feature would not lower the value of the BTS token, as it does not effect the demand. The supply on "paper" increases, but that supply never makes its way into the market. So, no downward pressure is ever applied onto the market from the BTS printed.

It doesn't need to. What matters is people's perception of what's happening. The simple idea of diluting will put many people off because they will immediately associate it with the merger and consequent price drop.

You could dilute, if people aren't aware of it your plan could work.
On the other hand even if you don't dilute, if people somehow think you're doing it, it will be a "merger" all over again.

People's perception matters a lot imo.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
The dex is not a decentralized exchange without a functioning smartcoin. Trading UIAs is nice but can be done faster and cheaper on poloniex.
We are 4 months in to bts 2.0 and none of the smartcoins are liquid. Something big needs to change.
People keep saying we just need a bridge to smartcoins but nobody will provide that bridge without liquidity
Here are some radical ideas of how to increase liquidity.

- The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%
- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.
- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.
- Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity
- Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX
- Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.
- Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.

Loads of people are going to moan about these ideas but we need to prove a smartcoin works.
The trading volume of USD:BTC over the last 24hrs is actually zero as it is on most days.

I tend to agree with you. focus should be on one bitasset. we can't expect to get all of them running. if you mean with abandon a black swan shutdown of the other smartcoins - that's really radical :D but something has to change...