Liquidity idea

[JonnyB]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

Why do no real world companies offer this exact service unless their exposure is hedged?...

Imo the closest we can come to offering this service is something like my 'Simple Smartcoin Account' approach.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21507.0.html

The real world example that does exactly this would be IG index (the worlds largest spreadbetting company )

Andrew Bole, Risk director at IG index

As counterparty to thousands of spread trades every day, from small punts to large trading positions, IG Index has to manage a significant amount of market risk. But hedging every spread trade as it is placed is not practical.

There are two ways around this problem. First, in highly active markets, many of the spread bets cancel each other out. "If it's a very busy market, you will have a lot of two-way business, which is ideal. We are just acting as another market-maker," says Bole.

However, in less liquid markets, such as spread bets on single stocks, IG Index cannot rely on investors taking both sides of the market. Instead, it hedges its exposure using futures on the underlying stock.

Yeah I was referring to spread betting companies. From the same article you quoted...

However, in less liquid markets, such as spread bets on single stocks, IG Index cannot rely on investors taking both sides of the market. Instead, it hedges its exposure using futures on the underlying stock. This is simple in principle, but the introduction of foreign exchange risk increases the complexity - a UK client might trade an overseas equity index but would expect payment in sterling. "The key part is working out what the underlying equivalent is (within our exposure model), and then you can use the tools available within the normal financial markets," Bole explains.

Keeping an eye on IG's exposure, the risk committee uses an approach that would be familiar to any fund manager - employing limits on individual underlyings, sectors of the markets and countries, in what Bole calls a hierarchy of exposure.

"If all your clients were long, you could arguably be inside your limits, but you could have massive exposure to the UK stock market as a whole. So, in that case, you would hedge on futures on the index. Or, if you are concentrated in a banking sector, you can review that sector - so you're building up a much better portfolio picture," he says.

They have a very complex risk management model to hedge their exposure wherever it's not easily cancelled out and presumably very few of our markets would be liquid and evenly matched at the beginning.

I like the idea of simple Smartcoin accounts but I think we'd have to incentivize others to put up collateral and then let market participants decide if they're happy with it. If we allowed BTS to be the loser if we were over-exposed/not properly hedged then we put BTS at serious risk imo.

For fiat currencies I think it would be fine maybe not for more volatile assets though.
If we were only long dollar and short all other fiat I can't see it being very costly.

[cylonmaker2053]

I think if we combine @Empirical1.2 's yield harvesting proposal (link below) with either a liquidity pool or rewards for providing liquidity, we'll be well on our way.  @JonnyBitcoin, I haven't seen you comment on this idea at all and hope you'll take a closer look and serious consider supporting it.  @cylonmaker2053, what about you?  I'm hoping we can start to coalesce around a smart idea like this. And keep in mind it doesn't require major structural changes to BitAssets, perhaps just tweaking settlement. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

i just replied on that linked thread. i'm not a fan of dilution if it means what i think it does --expanding the planned BTS supply. Having a fixed supply that isn't up for vote is a big allure of crypto to me.

why not recycle fees from the asset markets into some sort of yield, either to people who borrow smartcoins into existence, or to liquidity providers?

We're just talking about using funds available for worker proposals.  You can read further discussion about this on that thread now. 
 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

gotcha, thanks ...the term "dilution" makes me nervous, in general. appreciate the clarification.

[Empirical1.2]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

Why do no real world companies offer this exact service unless their exposure is hedged?...

Imo the closest we can come to offering this service is something like my 'Simple Smartcoin Account' approach.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21507.0.html

The real world example that does exactly this would be IG index (the worlds largest spreadbetting company )

Andrew Bole, Risk director at IG index

As counterparty to thousands of spread trades every day, from small punts to large trading positions, IG Index has to manage a significant amount of market risk. But hedging every spread trade as it is placed is not practical.

There are two ways around this problem. First, in highly active markets, many of the spread bets cancel each other out. "If it's a very busy market, you will have a lot of two-way business, which is ideal. We are just acting as another market-maker," says Bole.

However, in less liquid markets, such as spread bets on single stocks, IG Index cannot rely on investors taking both sides of the market. Instead, it hedges its exposure using futures on the underlying stock.

Yeah I was referring to spread betting companies. From the same article you quoted...

However, in less liquid markets, such as spread bets on single stocks, IG Index cannot rely on investors taking both sides of the market. Instead, it hedges its exposure using futures on the underlying stock. This is simple in principle, but the introduction of foreign exchange risk increases the complexity - a UK client might trade an overseas equity index but would expect payment in sterling. "The key part is working out what the underlying equivalent is (within our exposure model), and then you can use the tools available within the normal financial markets," Bole explains.

Keeping an eye on IG's exposure, the risk committee uses an approach that would be familiar to any fund manager - employing limits on individual underlyings, sectors of the markets and countries, in what Bole calls a hierarchy of exposure.

"If all your clients were long, you could arguably be inside your limits, but you could have massive exposure to the UK stock market as a whole. So, in that case, you would hedge on futures on the index. Or, if you are concentrated in a banking sector, you can review that sector - so you're building up a much better portfolio picture," he says.

They have a very complex risk management model to hedge their exposure wherever it's not easily cancelled out and presumably very few of our markets would be liquid and evenly matched at the beginning.

I like the idea of simple Smartcoin accounts but I think we'd have to incentivize others to put up collateral and then let market participants decide if they're happy with it. If we allowed BTS to be the loser if we were over-exposed/not properly hedged then we put BTS at serious risk imo.

[tbone]

I think if we combine @Empirical1.2 's yield harvesting proposal (link below) with either a liquidity pool or rewards for providing liquidity, we'll be well on our way.  @JonnyBitcoin, I haven't seen you comment on this idea at all and hope you'll take a closer look and serious consider supporting it.  @cylonmaker2053, what about you?  I'm hoping we can start to coalesce around a smart idea like this. And keep in mind it doesn't require major structural changes to BitAssets, perhaps just tweaking settlement. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

i just replied on that linked thread. i'm not a fan of dilution if it means what i think it does --expanding the planned BTS supply. Having a fixed supply that isn't up for vote is a big allure of crypto to me.

why not recycle fees from the asset markets into some sort of yield, either to people who borrow smartcoins into existence, or to liquidity providers?

We're just talking about using funds available for worker proposals.  You can read further discussion about this on that thread now. 
 
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

[CoinHoarder]

I am not in favor of any proposal that limits the utility of Bitshares' features. Having different kinds of Smartcoins is one of Bitshares' strengths. I want to be able to diversify into multiple assets like gold, silver, Bitcoin, Nasdaq, etc... bitUSD is so boring to me.

[cylonmaker2053]

I think if we combine @Empirical1.2 's yield harvesting proposal (link below) with either a liquidity pool or rewards for providing liquidity, we'll be well on our way.  @JonnyBitcoin, I haven't seen you comment on this idea at all and hope you'll take a closer look and serious consider supporting it.  @cylonmaker2053, what about you?  I'm hoping we can start to coalesce around a smart idea like this. And keep in mind it doesn't require major structural changes to BitAssets, perhaps just tweaking settlement. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

i just replied on that linked thread. i'm not a fan of dilution if it means what i think it does --expanding the planned BTS supply. Having a fixed supply that isn't up for vote is a big allure of crypto to me.

why not recycle fees from the asset markets into some sort of yield, either to people who borrow smartcoins into existence, or to liquidity providers?

[tbone]

We should do both, but the must be seperate proposals. If they are combined we would never agree on the details and end of not passing it.

I agree.  The yield harvesting proposal stands on its own.  Although it is perfectly compatible with any liquidity measures we decide separately to put into place.  Beyond that, @Empirical1.2 has also mentioned that it would tie in nicely with a bond market, although perhaps he can explain that a little further.

[Pheonike]

We should do both, but the must be seperate proposals. If they are combined we would never agree on the details and end of not passing it.

[tbone]

The more i think about this and see responses, i the more i'm weighing towards not supporting this proposal. i see merit in the idea, and would have likely supported something like this as a single market roll out for Bitshares in the beginning, but at this point i think our community has suffered from too many pivots; i also love our trading system and enjoy having a variety of markets to trade. it doesn't sit well with me trying to force volume from smartcoins people are voicing their preferences to trade (by actually trading them). it's possible some, or more, of that volume will simply disappear with discontent and more uncertainty from a major pivot.

there are always multiple solutions to the same problem, and in this context we have several other proposals to boost liquidity. One involves a complicated subsidization scheme, which is also a reasonable idea, but i prefer simply providing discounts for trading frequency.

we already have a great system, i think we're lacking on getting the word out to candidate traders. a persistent marketing campaign to retail and crypto traders is where i think we'd get the biggest bang for the effort.

I think we all agree that liquidity is the problem.
The elephant in the room for me is I can't buy $1000 of bitusd at anywhere near the peg.
Bitusd is only created when it is borrowed in existence. These creators of bitusd are rightly afraid that they will not be able to buy back to cover their debts.
Getting the word out or more marketing will not fix this issue.

People seem to be trying to fix the symptoms of poor liquidity rather than the underlying cause.

I love bitshares and if we can come up with a suitable system for liquidity then I think bitshares will sell itself.

I think if we combine @Empirical1.2 's yield harvesting proposal (link below) with either a liquidity pool or rewards for providing liquidity, we'll be well on our way.  @JonnyBitcoin, I haven't seen you comment on this idea at all and hope you'll take a closer look and serious consider supporting it.  @cylonmaker2053, what about you?  I'm hoping we can start to coalesce around a smart idea like this. And keep in mind it doesn't require major structural changes to BitAssets, perhaps just tweaking settlement. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html

[cylonmaker2053]

I think we all agree that liquidity is the problem.
The elephant in the room for me is I can't buy $1000 of bitusd at anywhere near the peg.
Bitusd is only created when it is borrowed in existence. These creators of bitusd are rightly afraid that they will not be able to buy back to cover their debts.
Getting the word out or more marketing will not fix this issue.

People seem to be trying to fix the symptoms of poor liquidity rather than the underlying cause.

I love bitshares and if we can come up with a suitable system for liquidity then I think bitshares will sell itself.

agreed and well said. what we really need is a bullish whale willing to buy $10M worth of BTS and systematically commit to borrowing bitUSD into existence and putting large chunks up for sale at whatever rate is demanded on the buy side. The only incentive we have at the moment to borrowing any smartcoin into existence is to leverage a long bet on BTS. Is there a better incentive, or is that sufficient to induce our first whale to bite?

the long-awaited bond market is all i think we'll need on the demand side.

[JonnyB]

The more i think about this and see responses, i the more i'm weighing towards not supporting this proposal. i see merit in the idea, and would have likely supported something like this as a single market roll out for Bitshares in the beginning, but at this point i think our community has suffered from too many pivots; i also love our trading system and enjoy having a variety of markets to trade. it doesn't sit well with me trying to force volume from smartcoins people are voicing their preferences to trade (by actually trading them). it's possible some, or more, of that volume will simply disappear with discontent and more uncertainty from a major pivot.

there are always multiple solutions to the same problem, and in this context we have several other proposals to boost liquidity. One involves a complicated subsidization scheme, which is also a reasonable idea, but i prefer simply providing discounts for trading frequency.

we already have a great system, i think we're lacking on getting the word out to candidate traders. a persistent marketing campaign to retail and crypto traders is where i think we'd get the biggest bang for the effort.

I think we all agree that liquidity is the problem.
The elephant in the room for me is I can't buy $1000 of bitusd at anywhere near the peg.
Bitusd is only created when it is borrowed in existence. These creators of bitusd are rightly afraid that they will not be able to buy back to cover their debts.
Getting the word out or more marketing will not fix this issue.

People seem to be trying to fix the symptoms of poor liquidity rather than the underlying cause.

I love bitshares and if we can come up with a suitable system for liquidity then I think bitshares will sell itself.

 

 

[JonnyB]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

This makes no sense, you don't really seem to understand how BitAssets work.You propose to just get rid of what makes BTS a good technology for a DEX.
Plus, the market peg on BitCNY is much better than with BitUSD, with much more efforts from the Chinese geared toward that. Getting rid of BitCNY would be completely disdainful.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of the bitasset mechanism, I'm saying concentrate it to one market.
I think the way bitassets work is good but we need at least 10x the volume and depth on bitusd for it to become a viable option for people. 
Maybe theres a case for keeping BitCNY but you are wrong when you say the market peg with BitCNY is better than bitUSD.
Anyway I said to keep a pegged CNYcoin but just not make it tradable. 

[JonnyB]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

Why do no real world companies offer this exact service unless their exposure is hedged?...

Imo the closest we can come to offering this service is something like my 'Simple Smartcoin Account' approach.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21507.0.html

The real world example that does exactly this would be IG index (the worlds largest spreadbetting company )

Andrew Bole, Risk director at IG index

As counterparty to thousands of spread trades every day, from small punts to large trading positions, IG Index has to manage a significant amount of market risk. But hedging every spread trade as it is placed is not practical.

There are two ways around this problem. First, in highly active markets, many of the spread bets cancel each other out. "If it's a very busy market, you will have a lot of two-way business, which is ideal. We are just acting as another market-maker," says Bole.

However, in less liquid markets, such as spread bets on single stocks, IG Index cannot rely on investors taking both sides of the market. Instead, it hedges its exposure using futures on the underlying stock.

[cylonmaker2053]

The more i think about this and see responses, i the more i'm weighing towards not supporting this proposal. i see merit in the idea, and would have likely supported something like this as a single market roll out for Bitshares in the beginning, but at this point i think our community has suffered from too many pivots; i also love our trading system and enjoy having a variety of markets to trade. it doesn't sit well with me trying to force volume from smartcoins people are voicing their preferences to trade (by actually trading them). it's possible some, or more, of that volume will simply disappear with discontent and more uncertainty from a major pivot.

there are always multiple solutions to the same problem, and in this context we have several other proposals to boost liquidity. One involves a complicated subsidization scheme, which is also a reasonable idea, but i prefer simply providing discounts for trading frequency.

we already have a great system, i think we're lacking on getting the word out to candidate traders. a persistent marketing campaign to retail and crypto traders is where i think we'd get the biggest bang for the effort.

[Empirical1.2]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

Why do no real world companies offer this exact service unless their exposure is hedged?...

Imo the closest we can come to offering this service is something like my 'Simple Smartcoin Account' approach.. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21507.0.html

[inarizushi]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

This makes no sense, you don't really seem to understand how BitAssets work.You propose to just get rid of what makes BTS a good technology for a DEX.
Plus, the market peg on BitCNY is much better than with BitUSD, with much more efforts from the Chinese geared toward that. Getting rid of BitCNY would be completely disdainful.

[tarantulaz]

Hey guys, @tbone refered me this thread. In return I would like to refer people to this thread : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21591.0.html
I am talking about Dash, Bitcoin and Nubits and Liquidity ideas. I would agree to drop all pairs other than BitUSD, BitCNY and BitBTC, and focus mainly on BitUSD. However, if the famous Chinese holders prefered to see CNY to be the main asset, I wouldn't mind.

Again, I think we need to gather both liquidity from specific providers like Openledger, Blocktrades and Metaexchange as well as others, however that should probably come after people start earning interest on their trades (open to any reasonable proposal). Because if liquidity providers could have extra incentives and could actually have more people trading, they could exponentially increase their earning. Thing of profitting by spreads, interest and probably some additional reward. Who wouldn't wanna provide liquidity?

[JonnyB]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

The blockchain/reserve pool would have to cover these costs. 
But lets get some perspective. For every winning trade there will be a similar number of losing trades which would offset losses and may even make profit.
I think should only be for fiat currencies.
Another way of offsetting any losses would be to charge a 1% fee when users choose to lock their Bitusd to another fiat currency.
Another way to offset this proposed systems excessive long USD position might with prediction markets.

[tonyk]

P.S. The idea to focus on BitUSD pairs was not tony's by any stretch.  @bytemaster made the point during a mumble several weeks ago.  And then @JonnyBitcoin resurrected the idea a couple of weeks ago on one of his liquidity threads here on the forum.  Tony simply added the idea to his recent forking proposal, which incorporated perhaps a couple decent ideas, but unfortunately for everyone is an overall abomination on many levels.

The idea of focusing on one (few) core markets is a common sense. I have never claimed I came up with it.
 For the rest - the made up version and reasoning that exist in your head (and there only) of my suggestion is totally disgusting, I agree. But that is still a pure  calumniation on your behalf and nothing more.

------------------

Jonny, I am still unclear on how this works (Hence the no on topic posts)


"bitusd can then be moved into other fiat denominated accounts where its value is locked/auto hedged to whatever currency you want. "

[Empirical1.2]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

I'm a bit slow with these things.

Lets say I have 1215 BitUSD & I put it into a special Gold wallet because I want to be long 1 ounce of Gold.

Gold then increases by 300% vs. USD.

Where does the additional $2400 come from to pay me my gains. Who loses on that trade?

[JonnyB]

Keep all UIAs.
What I'm saying is we need a master USD smartcoin for fiat.
Use the master as a base smartcoin to create all other fiat smartcoins from.

These other sub smartcoins would hold value in euros or yen etc but couldn't be traded only used to hold value.
They would need to be turned back to BitUSD if you want to do trading.

these sub smartcoins would work by transfering bitusd in to a special EUR wallet which uses a CFD behind the scenes to keep the the value correct by either adding or subtracting Bitusd.

[tbone]

I think this is the least of our worries atm, but assume that is adopted and the chinese community says: Why bitusd and not bitcny? It's always unfair to have one over the other.

Either way, I think this makes sense. It kind of reminds of Tonyk's idea but doesn't feel so "restricted".

I agree with @cylonmaker2053 that we should not shut down all smartcoins other than BitUSD.  But the UI is a clusterf*uck of trading pairs and while it might not be the biggest problem we have, it IS a problem and it only compounds other problems.  Ideally we would limit the trading pairs as @JonnyBitcoin mentioned -- primarily to those pairs most commonly traded in the "real world".  Although it might be possible that organizing/grouping the pairs differently in the UI will make a big difference.  Let's wait and see what @svk comes up with on that front (hopefully any day now). 

In the meantime, I think we should give VERY serious consideration to @Empirical1.2's idea to incentivize creation of BitAssets via yield harvesting.  I think we should do that, at least with a small amount of dilution, for both BitUSD and BitCNY in equal amounts (accounting for exchange rate).  To a smaller degree, I would also incentivize creation of BitEUR in the same manner as BitUSD and BitCNY. 

It is critical to start getting BitAssets in people's hands, otherwise @kenCode's POS system will be DEAD ON ARRIVAL or shortly thereafter.  By the way, I would also reward liquidity providers in the key markets, starting with BitUSD:BTS and BitUSD:BitCNY...followed by BitUSD:BitEUR....and then others as we gain traction. 

So we don't have to kill off any smartcoins or even any trading pairs.  Let's just take measures to bootstrap key markets in a smart, systematic manner. 

P.S. The idea to focus on BitUSD pairs was not tony's by any stretch.  @bytemaster made the point during a mumble several weeks ago.  And then @JonnyBitcoin resurrected the idea a couple of weeks ago on one of his liquidity threads here on the forum.  Tony simply added the idea to his recent forking proposal, which incorporated perhaps a couple decent ideas, but unfortunately for everyone is an overall abomination on many levels.

[cylonmaker2053]

I'm not convinced there's enough value in shutting down the few other smartcoin markets (i'm assuming you don't mean UIAs since those trade for different reasons) to try to channel those volumes into bitUSD. it's not that i'm 100% against the idea, it's worth exploring, i just have a modest preference for the way things are now. i trade every day on three of the markets. sure, i'd like more volume, but i also really like having the option to trade these three (USD, SILVER, BTC). there are other ways to get volume that don't involve shutting down trading pairs; it's also possible bitUSD doesn't capture an appreciable amount of the action from the other pairs.

[Akado]

I think this is the least of our worries atm, but assume that is adopted and the chinese community says: Why bitusd and not bitcny? It's always unfair to have one over the other.

Either way, I think this makes sense. It kind of reminds of Tonyk's idea but doesn't feel so "restricted".

[JonnyB]

Even the biggest markets and exchanges limit their market pairs, it makes for deeper liquid markets.

Gold traders in the UK and around the world trade GOLD:USD not GBP:USD same goes for the oil.

in the UK we think and quote barrels of oil  in USD and so does the rest of the world. There's not really a wholesale electronic marketplace for OIL:GBP

If the biggest markets in the world with huge volumes and 1000s of professional traders limit their trade pairs to just 1 then we certainly need to with our pathetic volumes we have at the moment.

bitstamp limits their trade pairs to just one BTC:USD and they are doing fine.

[cylonmaker2053]

#1 i see the value in restricting to a single smartcoin to get at least one market functioning properly, but what about simply denominating the other assets in asset-bitUSD pairs? e.g. keep the other existing markets, but change SILVER-BTS to SILVER-bitUSD. bitUSD would be the entry point into the DEX.

but... #2 i'm torn bc i see the value in working hard to get one market working well, but i also really like the flexibility and openness of the current system. we have a great model, just missing serious capital and more traders. changing the model has risks that may not be worthwhile, effort perhaps better spent marketing to traders and institutions that could potentially find our infrastructure valuable. 

[Vizzini]

Most of my posts are garbage. For once, I'm going to be 100% serious.

I actually love this idea. Get rid of Smartcoins and focus energy on what works. Thread everything else through one asset and go from there. Really.

[JonnyB]

Remove all smartcoins except BitUSD.
keep the witness price feeds.

Those who want to hold euros yen gold or pounds have to buy bitusd.

bitusd can then be moved into other fiat denominated accounts where its value is locked/auto hedged to whatever currency you want.

this new fiatpegged bitasset  could be transferred but not traded. in order to trade you would have to move it back to your bitusd wallet.

(only for fiat, cryptocoins need to be sidechains)